, _- ..'. ,_' d ~.\‘ 3"'é‘-',‘.-.‘!""F “ff 1 ' .13 '-" I M” r 1: 1" i”:'3 ' )3. 313‘?» 3 .' v3.3“: 3333' 33333 -‘ -.' -'~hF",- W? H 9 -..- 7’)» , x. _t. ‘ e‘ .3!” 4' .mdm 1 v ".3% 3 ' | 3 3“)“t‘4 . ‘39” . 4 _' “'I' tufilw ‘3 3‘ r.3 'Il" +0.34 ”._V "W ~ M; I Mr ' A '3’ ‘|1"43:; \’3 £33 3". 39“? '||' mifi *3“, " “in “1‘ 4,34? _. 21.3%. “gr. {"15 ' ‘1)":ng '3'- . . . I3 {3 33.x '3 ~3§33|‘|.t £1.33; 3 ' i ”is. manic»: 0% .' ' ”'43,. ' i: __ 5'39 :--.'~>.' ’ 123111133 3; 3.4 “i? E‘} ; '3'?f91“‘”mm ’ 3 3 33 ' 3 33 3‘ 3‘3 33 ".v;:.3{f13'-.'n|3nv4;:13333P3;13%1:3 3,333 ”1:“ 3333 3 3 a. ' ' ’1} ; . ,3" ‘_3 L ' .' ' ,|, l ' _ . . .I’33'.1."'vf3. W 1' w : 31-3-32. , 3 ‘3. .3; . . u.— ‘4‘ w' L‘ »-'v 4-..— "‘A. Y A.. as“ M 4, 1N4!“ 3| $.43? ‘38:}; i‘l- Vi 33.3503 3‘41; 3 3 33 3 3-53 3.3.33.3 333 3 333333 3 3 .3" 17 33. 9"#31:".'..3".'.3’33':§3'33‘3,'313‘333.1\|3L :M.: D::"'3333 "‘0“ ‘dljt' .3 ' | -' $.11:.‘.k" ' ';:3‘~:3:fl" . < 'Qt.‘ . ' ' 3 f 3-_ ...3. ,- 33 3 3 3 'fi "" H" .'—' ‘a-hfik'. E.#:l'li'nf|‘4‘33 .333'.g3}3:.3-' ;.33‘33«U3? its," - r313$|||33333 |. 3333331330343. . .33 3 C .‘ . 02:3." '1‘Lf33‘3‘3‘3flkk‘33’ ' . i" . 1 . 3 3 P f. r~,, _-c;p-A«'-:- A} w _F” r..- < s Its:-3 ..... | v3.|1'33'3$33)| ‘73.": 23?: . 32“; “JPN“ 3 3’13... _ . . 3’; A l 5' ...... l 3" '! ,h l ‘ 3 . i {'3}? 3.: f7'3u 3 .333 . ‘ . , . _ f3? 33 333 3- 33.3., " 1:.-'"'|"'U"'%'|""" fit 3".";:"' " " l5“ -; " ‘ t | ”3&1-33-333443333333 -' ' - . L‘h’ ‘7 LV‘"’ 3??! l ' l ‘ o 512...: :- r‘i' "ail-ll site I Uni '5:2';‘; 33' i LXV'WV __ , THESlS fig! This is to certify that the dissertation entitled QUALITY OF LIFE, FEAR OF CRIME, AND IMPLICATIONS OF FOOT PATROL POLICING presented by Donna C. Hale has been accepted towards fulfillment ofthe requirements for Ph.D. . Social Science degree in Major profes FM (2% Datefldjfl /@ //fj MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12T71 MSU LIBRARIES ”- BEIURNING MATERIAL§5 Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. __— l: c - x .1 2. it, .. .1 0v MA 2 0 2007 \OOM ‘JSE OM dad '25 - 0) ' hfifi QUALITY OF LIFE, FEAR OF CRIME, AND IMPLICATIONS OF FOOT PATROL POLICING By Donna C. Hale A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science/Interdisciplinary 1983 ABSTRACT QUALITY OF LIFE, FEAR OF CRIME, AND IMPLICATIONS OF FOOT PATROL POLICING By Donna C. Hale The purpose of this social impact assessment study was to examine the quality of life model of Garofalo and Laub (1978) as an explanation for the fear of crime in the mediumrsized city of Flint, Michigan. The data for this study was from a larger study of a foot patrol policing program evaluated in Flint during the 1979-81 period. The literature describing fear of crime and quality of life in the community supported this study since problems of "incivilities" which include vandalism, drug usage, deteriorating physical/environmental neighborhood conditions, juvenile curfew violations and noisy neighbors appear to have an effect on the way in which citizens perceive personal safety and crime in their neighborhoods. Factor analysis was applied to data from the first and third years of a panel comprised of predominantly older females (mean age 52 years), racially equivalent, who own their own homes and who Donna C. Hale live with others. Additionally, the panel can be characterized as long-term residents of Flint neighborhoods and the city itself (a mean of approxi- mately 30 years). While the findings concluded that the model is not unidimensional, support was given for Garofalo and Laub's contention that fear of crime is a subcomponent of the quality of life conceptual framework. While this study indicated that residents became more fearful by the third year of the foot patrol policing study, this may imply what the research literature described as the Halo effect. or that as a result of the foot patrol officer educating residents pertaining to potential problems in their neighborhoods, the residents by becoming more aware, also became more apprehensive and alert to the problems that the foot patrol officer stressed. Copyright by DONNA C. HALE 1983 Dedicated to the Memory of my Great-Grandfather W.O. Fitzpatrick Chief of Police Somerset, Kentucky 1914-1922 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would especially like to acknowledge Dr. Merry A. Morash because without her immeasurable assistance this dissertation would not have been completed. Secondly, I want to thank the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for permitting me to use the community data that was collected for the Flint Foot Patrol Study during the 1979-1981 period. I thank all my friends who have been patient and always willing to listen and help; but, I especially wish to thank Karen Collamore Sullivan and Thomas L. Austin for their encouragement and support. Not to be forgotten are the members of my committee: Robert Trojanowicz, Chair; Peter Levine, John McNamara and Chris Vanderpool for their guidance. Finally, I want to thank my family for their support over the years; but, I especially want to thank my mother who insisted I take typing in high school. This skill has served me well throughout my career, particularly as I have completed my degree without the often cited assistance of a "wife". iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Public Perceptions of Crime . . Symbolic Order in the Neighborhood Fear of Crime in the Neighborhood . Purpose of the Study. . . . Significance of the Study . Overview of the Study . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Crime, Fear and Reactions to Crime Quality of Life and Fear of Crime Crime, Signs of Disorder and Fear . Fear of Crime: A New Approach "Fear of Crime: The Limitations of Victimization Surveys as a Measure Fear of Crime: A Social Control Perspective . . . . . . Environmental Conditions, Fear of Crime and Community Linkages Neighborhood Bonds as Indicators of Fear of Crime . . . . . Crime Rates, Fear, and Community Involvement . . . The Need for a Conceptual Framework . Demographic, Psychosocial and Crime 1 Related Factors . . The Concept of Quality of Life. Quality of Life and Foot Patrol Police. Summary . iv Page vi vii viii Chapter III. IV. Page DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 60 Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction to the Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Social Impact Assessment: The Flint Foot Patrol Study . . . . . 62 Data Collection and Sample Selection . . . 65 A Demographic Description of the Panel . . 66 Data Collection . . . 67 The Independent and Dependent Variables . 68 Quality of Life Conceptual Framework: Application to this Study. . 72 Operationalization of Garofalo and Laub' 3. Quality of Life Conceptual Framework . . . 73 Measurement of Quality of Life and Fear of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 FLINT - A DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CITY AND THE FOURTEEN FOOT PATROL NEIGHBORHOODS 82 Normative Sponsorship Theory: Theory into Practice . . . . . . . . 82 Flint: A History of the City . . . . . . 89 Flint: A Demogra hic Analysis . . . . . . 90 Crime Rates for FIint and Cities of Similar Size . . . 91 A Composite Description of the Fourteen Foot Patrol Areas . . . . . . . . . . 95 FINDINGS 98 Panel Characteristics . . . . . 98 Assessment of Garofalo and Laub' 3 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . .100 Analysis of Factor Scores . . . . . . . .106 Chapter Page VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 113 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Implications . . . . . . . . . . 115 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 118 Recommendations . . . . . 119 Recommendations for Future Research . . 122 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘127 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 vi Table LIST OF TABLES Principal Component Analysis Output for Quality of Life . . . . . . Rotated Factor Structure for Quality of Life . . . . Factor Groupings for .Quality of Neighborhood . . . Principal Component Analysis Output for Fear of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . Rotated Factor Structure for Fear of Crime . Fear of Crime Factor Summary of Statistically Significant ANOVA Findings Between the Eight Sociodemographic Variables, Year, and Each of the Five Factors vii Page . 100 101 . 102 . 103 104 105 108 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES A Conceptual Framework . viii Page 50 Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Crime Rates per 100,000 of Offenses Reported in Flint and in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Crime Statistics for the Fourteen Flint Foot Patrol Areas 1978 and 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 A Composite Description of the Fourteen Flint Foot Patrol Areas . . . . . . . . 143 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The relationship between crime and neighborhood deterioration has been described as a peculiar one.1 Although crime and fear of crime have long been identified as elements in the process of urban decay, it has proved? difficult to connect them in any direct way. Taub, Taylor and Dunham (1981) state that evidence from a National Institute of Justice sponsored study they recently con— ducted indicates that the impact, or lack thereof, of crime can be understood only in the context of other aspects of community life. These researchers conclude that . Communities themselves are caught up in larger social forces which are embedded in the matrix that is the city. As the early Chicago School sociologists pointed out, neighborhoods go through life cycles, with older neighborhoods tending to deteriorate and become less desirable. Crime is simply one element in this larger constellation of forces which lead to decline; unless those forces all push in the same direction, crime has little effect. When neighborhood confidence exists, i.e.,, when property appreciation and resident investment are high, crime and the fear of crime make little difference in individual orientations. However, when numerous aspects of neighborhood life are threatened, crime and the fear of it take on new significance in the minds of the relevant actors. 2 Even though transportation and communications technology have lessened the strength of community within geographically restricted settings, research indicates that the neighborhood continues to be a salient arena of everyday life for the many urban dwellers with heavy social and economic investments in a home territory or turf. This concern for community is reflected in the "grassroots" movement across the United States of citizens to reduce crime and to improve public services and facilities. Planners and policy makers have been forced by political pressure to "make neighborhoods livable,‘ and have considered programs that might have benefical effects for neighborhood satisfaction within their jurisdictions.3 In the late 19603 investigators from several social science disciplines started to examine the quality of life-in American society. While some quality-of-life investigators were mainly concerned with the precise measurement of "objective" social indicatorsA, literature emerged that was more "subjective" including concerns with the patterns and correlates of happiness, satisfaction, affect, and personal adjustment has also emerged.5 Members of the subjective school believe that research efforts should be devoted to understanding how objective factors are perceived and interpreted; and state that "an individual's satisfaction with any set of circum- stances is dependent not only on those circumstances as viewed objectively but on a whole set of values, attitudes, and expectations that he brings to the 6 Because the connection between external situation." conditions and internal psychological states remains imperfect, subjective studies focus on respondents' perceptions of specific dimensions or attributes which enhance or detract from.the quality of life within a particular domain of experience.7 The studies that have been conducted with the subjective quality-of-life approach focused on reference .group relationship of residents perceptions of local neighborhood conditions as compared to global evaluations of quality of life issues elsewhere. These perceptions included feelings regarding local safety, environmental quality, public service adequacy, and housing upkeep.8 The impact of such perceptions on neighborhood satisfaction is consistent in sign if not in magnitude: the worse local conditions are perceived to be, the less satisfied residents are with their neighborhoods. Presumably the direction of the relationship between the per- ceptual and satisfaction variables would remain the same if these variables were operationalized for populations rather than individuals.9 Taub, et.al. used this subjective indicators of quality of life in their study to measure and interpret satisfaction with community life and concluded that satisfaction with the safety of a neighborhood can be quite high, even though the perceived level of risk is also quite high. For example, a person can live in a high risk area and still be satisfied with the level of safety if, for instance, there is high quality housing, there are desirable public spaces nearby, the neighborhood is close to where the person works, or the person thinks the situation in the neighborhood is bad, but also believes that things will improve.10 Public Perceptions of Crime Research by Furstenberg, Lotz and Van Dijk presented evidence indicating that the perceived seriousness of the crime problem was not related to the objective risk of victimization, but rather was influenced by a resentment of social change. Their studies indicated that measures of perceptions of crime may be tapping more diffuse perceptual orientations.11 Their findings suggest that public perceptions of crime are diffuse phenomena reflecting generalized anxieties concerning the social and political environment. Such a conceptualization greatly complicates the meaning that is to be attributed to measures of perception. From this perspective, it may not be assumed that a perceptual reaction to crime --as verbalized by a survey respondent -- necessarily signifies a narrow subjective reaction to an objective 12 has written, reality of crime. It may be as Wilson that apprehension with respect to crime may merely be a specific articulation of a non-specific apprehension with respect to community. According to Wilson, the crime-related anxieties recorded by pollsters may be expressions of a generalized resentment of diversity, change and improper behavior in public places. In a similar vein, Garofalo and Laub13 have more recently argued that because of their diffuse nature, perceptions of crime may be most properly conceptualized as sub- jective indicators of the quality of life.14 Symbolic order in the Neighbbrhood People have a concern with order and the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Order is oftentimes perceived by residents by the symbolic image of the police officer. However, until the 19709 and the development of police community relations, police officers were removed from the public by patrol assignment in motorized vehicles. This removal from the community resulted in the police officer's role becoming one of apprehension of law violators and turning them over to the courts over the former focus of order maintenance duties including handling disputes, providing information, responding to complaints and handling crowds.15 Fear of Crime in the Neighborhood Another area that develped at the same time as police community relations (and largely attributable to the rising crime rates in American cities) was the fear of crime that citizens appeared to exhibit. This fear of crime concomitantly effected the way they per- ceived the performance of their local police departments, and opinion polls regularly focused on recording the way citizens perceived this performance in addition to reporting citizens' fear of crime levels. Beginning in the 19705 victimization studies (including sections addressing citizens' fear of crime levels) were con- ducted in the 26 largest American cities over a five- year period. These studies primarily concluded that there was no concrete definition of exactly what fear of crime entails. It is now quite evident (as the review of literature supports in Chapter II) that the measure used in these fear of crime studies (predomin- ately the global measure of how fearful residents are of walking in their neighborhoods at certain times) is not an adequate measure. As a result of this apparent failure of the fear of crime measurel utilized in many fear of crime studies, there seems to be no successful indicator to measuring fear of crime consistently. Garofalo and Laub (1978) suggest that fear of crime should not exclusively be considered as walking in the neighborhood at certain times, but rather considered as part of a quality of life concept including environment, noise, parking/ traffic, availability of shopping facilities, schools, and problems with neighbors. What they suggest is that the fear of crime is actually based on the way in which residents of neighborhoods perceive the quality of life in their neighborhoods, i.e., those less satisfied with the quality of life in their neighbor- hoods will concomitantly have a greater fear of crime than those with a more satisfying quality of life who will view crime as less of a problem in their neighborhood. Purpose of this Study This exploratory study is a secondary analysis of data from a foot patrol police study evaluated in the' medium-sized city of Flint, Michigan. Included as part of the survey instrument were items intended to measure changes in the citizens' fear of crime at two points in time, i.e., the first and third years of the study. Furthermore, this study provides the opportunity to examine fear of crime by using the quality of life conceptual framework recommended by Garofalo and Laub (1978) who argue that perceptions of crime may be properly conceptualized as a subjective indicator of the quality of life because of their diffuse nature. Ultimately, the Garofalo and Laub model can be used as a method of assessing how foot patrol policing (which is designed to be on close intimate day-to-day contact with neighborhood residents) may affect the citizens' perceptions of crime and safety in their neighborhoods. Significance of the Study It is anticipated that the findings from this study will provide both a valid conceptualization of fear of crime through a quality of life conceptuali- zation that will be relevant not only to sociology and criminal justice, but particularly to future fear of crime and police-community relations studies. The conceptual framework of Garofalo and Laub (1978) is examined in this study to conceptually clarify fear of crime. This conceptual clarity as Jackson and Borgatt indicate, can only be derived by valid measures. This conceptual clarity is necessary in order to have a clear and only one meaning that can be used consistently in theoretical formulation.16 Since the literature clearly justifies that the fear of crime measure is vague and inadequate as a measure of how fearful citizens are in their neighborhoods, an examination of the Garofalo and Laub quality of life concept as a subjective indicator of the fear of crime is truly warranted. 10 Overview of the Study The chapters which follow examine in greater detail the general topics included in this chapter. In Chapter II an examination of the research literature in the area of fear of crime and quality of life is presented and draws several conclusions pertaining to the impact these findings contribute to the present study. Chapter III presents the first part of a two-part methodology description. Since this is a social impact assessment study, it is necessary to provide a qualitative description of the city of Flint and the fourteen neighborhoods receiving foot patrol policing services. This demographic information is presented in Chapter IV. Chapter III is the more traditional methodology chapter presenting the design and methodology used for the study. The results of the study are presented and discussed in Chapter V. The concluding Chapter VI examines the implications of the findings from.this study as well as recommendations for future research. CHAPTER I Footnotes l. ' Richard P. Taub, D. Garth Taylor, and _ -~ ,. Jan D. Dunham, "Neighborhoods and Safety," in Reaction to Crime, Dan A. Lewis, editor, Beverly Hills, CaIifornia: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981, 103. 2. Ibid., 103.104, 3. Barrett E. Lee and Avery M. Guest, "Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction: A.Metropolitan-Leve1 Analysis," The SoCiologiCal Quarterly, Volume 24, Spring 1983, 289. 4. Ibid., 289n290. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. \OCDNO‘UI Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Taub, et.al., op.cit., 109. 12. Vincent F. Sacco, "An Exploratory Analysis of the Conceptual Meaning of Perceptions of Crime," Canadian Journal of CriminOlogy, Volume 24, Number 3, July 1980, 296. 13." Ibid., 297. 14. Ibid. 15. See James Q. Wilson, varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968. ll 12 16. David J. Jackson and Edgar F. Borgatta, editors, Factor Analysis and Measurement in Sociological Research: A MultiéDimensionaI Perspective, Beverly HiIIs, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981, 3. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Crime, Fear, and Reactions to Crime A review of the research literature on the relation- ships among crime, fear, and actions that people take in response to crime indicates that despite the impor- tance of these issues relatively little is known about them. Perhaps the most consistent belief revealed by public opinion polls is that crime is increasing. Research findings further support that the fear of crime has increased since the mid-19608 among all sections of the population. 1 The public opinion polls indicate that crime is one of the major concerns of Americans. A survey conducted by the American Institute of Public Opinion in 1965 asked respondents "Is there any area right around here--that is, within a mile-~where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?" to which 17 percent of the men and 48 percent of the women responded in the affirmative. In 1972, responses to the same questions revealed that 20 percent of the men and 58 percent of the women answered in the affirmative.2 13 14 Opinion polls indicate that fear of crime is parti- cularly an urban problem” When asked how safe they felt walking in their neighborhoods at night, residents in large cities (500,000 and over) as contrasted to those in small towns (under 2,500) reported fear of crime percentages as 48 percent and 21 percent in 1965 and 48 percent and 24 percent in 1972. In 1973, approxi- mately half of the urban residents reported being uncomr fortable at night within a mile of their homes. 3 While residents' responses were affected by the questions' wording, the evidence suggests that levels of fear of crime rose significantly between 1965 and the mid-19703, and since then have remained stationary. 4 Interestingly, these findings match closely the course of the "crime wave" of the latter half of the 19603 and early 19703 which has leveled off as well. 5 It was during this period (1965-1972) that the FBI reported more than a 90 percent increase in the rate of index offenses known to the police 6; surprisingly, however, were the reports that did not show a dramatic increase in the percentage reporting fear of walking alone at night, among either males or females. While fear in large urban areas apparently has not increased substantially in recent years, it is nonetheless dis- 15 concerting to know that one out of two residents living in large cities fears walking alone at night--a proportion dating back to at least 1965.7 It is apparent from.this statistic that citizens' fear for personal safety out- weighs the actual probabilities of their personally being victimized. Indeed, the fear of crime is considered by some observers to be a major social problem in itself.8 A variety of public opinion polls, for example, have shown that private citizens view criminality as a social problem of increasing proportion and that their fear of criminal victimization has increased in recent years. Research has shown that fear is a consequence of crime; however, research also indicates that mest conse- quences of crime--including fear--are indirect. While victoms of crime are more fearful as a result of their experiences, many more people have indirect contact with crime. One criminologist has labeled the stress incurred by citizens living in a constant state of fear, the opportunities lost because of the avoidance of situations in which victimizations might occur the "indirect" costs 10 of crime. It is this "indirect victimization" that signifies a serious erosion in the quality of life in 11 the United States. Research findings have estimated that "indirect victimization" affects 41 percent of all 16 United States citizens and over half of all persons who live in large cities.12 Quality of Life and Fear Of Crime The quality of life concept plays a crucial role in the way in which residents perceive the safety of their neighborhoods. Indeed, Furstenberg concluded from his study (1971) that people "take their cue ' from the neighborhood about how afraid to be.’ Con- sequently, he believed that people generally have a fairly accurate notion of the amount of crime in their neighborhoods. When Furstenberg examined the probability of victimization (measured by police statistics), he found that the rates of victimization were related to the respondents' perceptions of the crime risk in their neighborhoods. He reported that mest people in high crime areas thought that their neighborhoods were 'generally more dangerous than other parts of the city; and people in low crime areas correctly perceived the relative security of their neighborhoods. Furstenberg concluded that these informational evaluations seem to provide a basis for people's estimate of how afraid to be even more than the offical crime statistics.13 17 Earlier (1967) Reiss had reported opposite findings concerning fear of crime than Furstenberg (1971) in his study of areas in Chicago and Boston which exhibited relatively high crime rates. Reiss determined that in spite of the high crime rates a majority of residents felt that their neighborhoods were reasonably free of crime and that the likelihood of their becoming crime victims was low. Reiss reasoned that the residents were not basing their judgments on any rational cal- culation of probabilities of vicitimization. An understanding of Furstenberg's (1971) and Reiss' (1967) findings can be explained by the quality of life concept that holds that the way people view other aspects of the neighborhood conditions (not just reported crime) may have an impact on citizens' perception of fear in their neighborhoods. While the quality of life issue has never been addressed in the crime/victimization surveys, questions were included in the National Crime Survey (NCS) questionnaire designed to assess how citizens perceive the problem of crime and personal safety in their neighborhoods, other city neighborhoods, and the United States in general. 18 What is evident from.the National Crime survey questions pertaining to neighborhood safety is the popular belief about the distribution of crime as the tendency to view it as a problem which occurs somewhere else, largely involving others. For example, when the National Crime Surveys were conducted in the nation's five largest cities, respondents were asked if they thought crime was increasing or decreasing in two different contexts--their neighborhood, and the nation 14 It was revealed that 86% thought crime in as a whole. the United States was increasing, and 482 reported limiting their activities because of crime. This cur- tailment of activities because of crime is typified when residents of an area, e.g., Douglas Park in Chicago, are hesitant in allowing their children to play in the park unsupervised. A further finding indicates that residents saw violent crime as increasing elsewhere, "// while local increases were believed to be more confined to property crime.15 Thistendency of individuals to distancing themselves V from crime can be seen more dramatically in their views about the effects of crime. In response to the Census Bureau's big-city surveys, 87% of respondents interviewed reported limiting or changing their activities because of l9 fear of crime. However, when asked about people in their neighborhood, 67% of respondents reported that their neighbors limited their activities because of crime. When they were asked about themselves, 48% indicated that they limited their activities because of crime. These per- ceptions were so widespread that Hindelang, et.al., (1978) concluded that even urban dwellers saw crime as a "non- personal, non-local" problems In their view, people are not incapacitiated by concern about nearby crime and see the problem as a manageable one.16 Research on general beliefs about crime indicates that by and large they have few roots in experience, and are not related to the victimization experiences of individuals; at most, they vary a few percentage points 17 between victims and nonvictims. In fact, it is residents of low-crime neighborhoods who are most likely to place crime high on their agenda for public 18 As a rule, people overestimate the frequency 19 action. and overvalue the serious of crime. While the research of the mid-19703 period indicated that fear of crime was neither related to.the risk of victimization nor to actual experiences with victimization, other studies conducted reveal that demographic, psycho- social, and environmental variables may also have a 20 significant impact on a person's fear of being 20 victimdzed. The more consistent findings revealed that fear of crime is higher among femeles and non— whites; that "fearful" respondents are more likely to be found among those with grade school educations, those who are older and those in the low income groups.21 However, the issues of how the fear of crime is related to variations in crime rates, in probabilities of being victimized, and in actual O O O C C O 22 experiences w1th v1ct1mizat1on are less clear. Liska states that fear of crime studies suggest that the . fear of crime can lead to deleterious psychological effects (such as feelings of anxiety, mistrust, alienation, and dis- satisfaction with life) and to efforts to reduce fear (e.g., taking drugs), to avoid victimization (e.g., staying off the streets at night, avoiding strangers and cur- tailing social activities), and to protect oneself (e.g. buying watch dogs, firearms, anti-burglary equipment, insurance, and learning self-defense). 24 21 The next section of this chapter describes surveys that have been conducted in attempts to examine how respondents report fear of crime in an environmental or quality of life context. Crime, Signs of Disorder 'and Fear Surveys have been conducted to ascertain the extent respondents believed the local social order to be. These studies were conducted by attempts at measuring neighborhood conditions by surveying citizens about "how much of a problem" some of the most prominent crimes (robbery, burglary, assault and rape) are in their neighborhoods. These five crimes are of the type that Conklin (1975), the Crime Commission (President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967), and others see as the major causes of fear. All involve direct or potential personal confrontations with offenders and 25 Conklin thus may possibly lead to injury or death. (1971, 1975) and others argue that, over time, fear in turn generates neighborhood crime and disorder, reduces levels of integration, and reshapes a community's demography. These authors assume that when people are fearful their solidarity with those around them and their trust in others decline, their attachment to the community weakens, and their satisfaction with the neighborhood as a place to live disappears.26 Stinchcombe, et. a1. (1978) argue that the most debilitating fears are associated with conditions such as physical deterioration of their neighborhoods in- cluding abandoned buildings, junk, garbage and noise because these aspects reflect perceptions of local conditions and the anxiety they generate is enduring; the "perception of risk depends both on the concen- tration of risk in time and space and on the presence of early signs of impending danger."27 23 Fear of Crime: A New ApproaCh Until the late 19703, most research pertaining to the fear of crime had been descriptive focusing on the correlates of fear of crime and how these correlates interact in their associations with fear. Garofalo and Laub (1978) were the first researchers to suggest that perhaps the question researched: "fear of crime" was not an adequate measure to ascertain exactly what made residents fearful or aware of crime. Garofalo andi" Laub asserted that what researchers and theorists have been measuring and conceptualizing as the fear of crime may not actually have a simple correspondence with the immediate fears that the citizens have about being personally victimized in specific types of criminal acts. Consequently, Garofalo and Laub (1978) believingthat the findings of previous research had not provided an adequate measure of fear of crime recon- ceptualized and placed fear of crime into a broader framework of the subjective experience of the quality of life.‘ The authors suggest that the fear of actual criminal victimization is inseparable from.the unease generated by other more minor forms of public deviance, 24 and that the sum of these anxieties is the basis for the concern with the community. The authors try to connect the concern for community to the notion of quality of life and draw out some of the implications of that concern for public policy.28 Skogan (1976) and Hindelang, et.al. (1978) agree with Garofalo and Laub (1978) that the measure of fear of crime (essentially measured as how safe residents feel when walking in their neighborhoods at night) has not been found to be a strong predictor of responses to attitudinal items designed to be indicators of the fear of crime. After anlayzing the data from.victimi— zation surveys in which respondents were asked about both their victimization experiences and their fear of crime, Skogan, et.al., concluded that only weak to moderate individual—level relationships between urban respondents who expressed fear of being out alone in their neighborhoods and the extent and nature of their personal experiences with victimization during the twelve months preceding the interviews were found.29 I/ l] // v 25 Furthermore, Hindelang, et.al. (1978) discerned that*: when aggregate-level data was used the evidence was mixed. Findings indicated that fear of being out alone in one's neighborhood was higher among females and persons in older age groups than among males and persons in younger age groups, but the risk of personal victimi- zation was higher for males and younger persons; conversely, higher levels of fear were congruent with higher personal victimization risks across race and income groups. Fear of being out alone and rates of personal robbery have been positively correlated when cities are the units of analysis (Skogan, 1976; Garofalo, 1979), but the relationship does not hold up as well with other types of crimes (such as assault, burglary, and larceny).30 The best that can be said from the available evidence is that the questionnaire items by researchers as indicators of fear of crime do not covary strongly with either the risk of or experience with criminal victimization. The lack of clarity in these findings leads to the conclusion that the "fear of crime" is not simply the fear of crime. 26 "Fear Of crime: The Limitations of Victimization SurVeys as a'Measure Garofalo and Laub (1978) state that if attitudes called the "fear of crime" stemmed directly from actual fears about crime, one would expect the threat of crflme to be perceived as something immediate rather than distant or abstract. Yet the evidence indicates that crime is not an imminent, tangible threat to most people. In surveys of the residents of eight American cities, for example, the following findings emerged: (1) respondents were much more likely to say that crime had been increasing in the United States as a whole than in their neighborhoods; (2) among those who thought crime was increasing, violent crimes were viewed as increasing in the United States as a whole, but property crimes were seen as mainly responsible for the increases in their own neighborhoods; (3) fewer than 10 percent of the respondents rated their own neighborhoods as more dangerous or much more dangerous than other neighborhoods in the same metropolitan area; and (4) respondents were more likely-to say that people in their neighborhoods or people in general had made behavioral limitations or changes because of crime than to say that they themselves had made such 32 limitations or changes. It is evident from this description 27 that most information about fear and concern for crime comes from.national«level data which do not make dis— tinctions between the fear of being personally victimized and a more generalized concern about crime as a national problem. Sparks in a recent review of the victimization literature found that while there is an enormous amount of data on the victims of crime and what befell them there is a limited amount of information that can be gleaned from.the data primarily attributable to the survey 33 He concluded, however, technique in its present form. that a few generalizations could be made on the basis of research to date which seem both substantively important and well founded. First, when confined to the Uniform Crime Reports "crime index,‘ excluding homicide—-it is clear, that, for the populations of the United States and other western countries in which surveys have been done, criminal victimization is an extremely rare event. In particular, crimes of interpersonal violence are extremely uncommon. There is abundant evidence suggesting that criminal victimization is not uniformly or randomly distributed among individuals within the population as a whole; and there is some evidence that it is not randomly dis? tributed among easily defineable subgroups of the 28 population. Approximately 90 percent of the people interviewed in the victimization surveys (in the National Crime Surveys), report no incidents at all having happened to them” Sparks concludes that . . A general finding of surveys since those done for the President's Commission is that direct experience as a victim.has remarkable little affect on people's perceptions of the incidence or prevalence of crime, their expressed fear of crime, or their attitudes to the police. In part this is because most people have only minimel direct experience as victims. 35 revealed that fear was not The earlier studies related to the level of victimization in a direct, straight forward way. While the amount of crime in an area generally predicted the amount of fear among those area residents, there were enquflianomolies in these findings to raise the issue of what other factors besides the level of victimization affected the level of fear among respondents. Citizens least likely to be victimdzed, (female and elderly), for example, exhibited the highest 36 Furthermore, the relationship between levels of fear. victimization levels and citizen assessments of the crime problem is inconsistent at best. Researchers of these studies found 29 that attitudes of citiznes regarding crime are less affected by their past victimization than by their ideas about what is going on in their community--fears about a weakening of social controls on which they feeI their safety and the broader fabric 37 of social life is ultimately dependent. Therefore, Biderman, et.al concluded in 1967 that based on their findings including the ambiguous relationship between victimization and the fear of crime, the indications that crime is not generally perceived as an immediate threat, and the mixing of crime with fear of strangers all point to the conclusion that what has been measured in research as the "fear of crime" is not simple fear of crime.38 Fear of Crime: A SOcial Control PerSpeCtiVe Consequently, researchers39 began to reconceptualize that the fear of crime‘may actually influence people not because of victimization status,but rather by how people perceive crime from "the highly visible signs of what they regard as disorderly and disreputable behavior in their community."40 While few people witness crimes or personally experience them, they all associate danger from crime with selected aspects of the environment. They rely upon the 30 presence of or absence of those cues to warn them from “1 dangerous locals; the environmental cues serve as what Stinchcombe, et.al. (1978) dubbed "the signs of crime."41 An alternative framework for the analysis of crime and community has been constructed by Salem and Lewis labeled the "social control perspective." This framework was derived by the authors based on findings of a five year study of reactions to crime conducted at the Urban Affairs Center, Northwestern University that suggested that citizens define the crime problem in ways that are inconsistent with the assumptions of the victimization approach. Salem and Lewis believe that the social control perspective make it possible to both define the problems and devise crime prevention strategies to elicit involvement in ways that are more consistent with the perceptions and interests of the neighborhood residents who are expected to participate. In their examination of crime in ten neighborhoods in Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, Salem and Lewis (1980) reveal a broad range of concerns which include but are not limited to the crimes considered by those working within the victimization perspective. Respondents when questioned about crime problems identified a range of what Salem.and Lewis labeled "incivilities" 31, which include abandoned buildings, teenagers hanging around, illegal drug use and vandalism. These, in most instances, appeared to generate as much or more concern than those crimes traditionally considered by scholars examining fear of crime. The concerns appeared to be equally potent in generating fear of crime.42 The social control perspective extended by Salem and Lewis assumes that fear of crime is a problem.in communities that do not have the capacity to regulate u/ _themselves. Fear is induced, not only by crime, but by a range of other signs of social disorganization that indicate to residents that their community is changing in threatening ways. The ability of local institutions to resist the disorganization process is a function of their capacity to assert the legitimacy of local standards and to affect these activities inside the neighborhood which are contributing to the disorganization process. Salem.and Lewis43 state that when a community cannot assert its values, its residents become fearful. Thus, the social control perspective views fear of crime in more global terms as a reaction to the decline of a local area._ Those who are fearful may in fact see their risk of victimization increasing, but they see this as a con« sequence of the moral decay of their community brought about by the invasion of forces seen as disruptive to the social order. As these increase in number, fear increases. 32 EnVir'onmen‘t‘a 1' Conditions, Fear 'of‘Crime‘andlCommunity‘Linkages In another study, researchers focused on the influence of environmental conditions on fear and the effects of the linkages between people and their 44 These researchers justified surrounding community. their study on the basis that an important component of any analysis of how people understand and attempt to deal with crime must be their assessment of the risks which surround themm It is in the neighborhood where people spend a significant fraction of the nonworking day, and it is only commensensical that events and conditions occurring in the neighborhood should have an important effect on one‘s daily behavior. In addition, there are a variety of factors that tie one's personal fate to that of one's local community. People who own their homes, or have children enrolled in a local school, or enjoy relatives or close friends in the vicinity share more than a passing interest in neighborhood conditions, regardless of the personal experiences or sense of vulnerability to crime. The mere closely their fates are tied to the community the more sensitive they may be to local conditions, and the more likely they may be 33 to respond actively to them.as individuals or in concert with each other. Finally, neighborhoods form.an important locus for action. The perceptions of community residents of how much a problem crime and disorder is in their area, as well as their commitment to it, should play an important role in determining what people think and do about the problem.45 Similar to Salem and Lewis (1980), Skogan and Maxfield /g (1981) in their research attempt to show that the indicators of reported crime interact with neighborhood residents' perceptions of incivility in forming perceptions of crime problems in the neighborhood. Assuming the level of incivility in each neighborhood as creating a sense of danger and decay which increases individuals” perceived risk of victimization, Skogan and Maxfield measured "incivility" in terms of people's perceptions of the problems of abandoned buildings, vandalism, kids hanging around on street corners, and illegal drugs in the neighborhood. Therefore, neighborhood incivilities or signs of crime or potential "problems" that serve as early-warning signals of impeding dangers because people have learned to associate them with things they fear. For example, in Skogan and Maxfield's field investigations they learned that "an abandoned building is a source of considerable distress 34 to residents of a community. People believe that tramps will break into empty buildings to escape the cold and sleep; then "drug dealers" will ply' their trade in them, marketing among youths in the area. Criminals of various sorts are thought to base their operations there, making it a dangerous event to walk near an abandoned structure. At the very least vandals will deface an empty building, and perhaps, loot it. Financially, abandoned buildings become targets for casual arson, and seem to have a high chance of being set afire. This threatens neighboring homes as well. Skogan and Maxfield conclude that it may not take much abandonment to constitute a community problem.46 Skogan and Maxfield47 measured citizens' perception of local order by asking respondents "how much of a problem” the various conditions such as abandoned buildings, teenagers hanging out on the streets, drug use and vandalism were in their neighborhoods. The most common of these problems proved to be drug use and teenage congregations, followed very closely by vandalism. All of these concerned about 20% of their respondents in a major way. Only abandoned or burned- out buildings posed a "big problem” for less than one in ten. Their findings indicate that reported neighborhoodelevel crime rates and perceptions of incivility interact to increase fear and concern. 35 Hunter has concluded that crimenlinked problems (vandalism, bands of teenagers, and drug-realted problems) exhibited in the neighborhood as "fear in the urban environment" is primarily a fear of social disorder that may come to threaten the individual. He suggests that "this fear results mere from.experiencing incivility than from direct experience with crime itself." Within areas of a city, Hunter states, incivility and crime'may in fact be empirically correlated. Consequently, incivility would then be a symbolic cue to the heightened possibility for more serious criminal victimization. Independent of this empirical question, incivility may still produce greater variation in fear than does crime because of its relative frequency in daily experience of urban dwellers.49 Neighborhood Bonds as Indicators of Fear of Crime 50 have discerned that neighborhood Other studies integration reflects residential commitment. People are more integrated into their communities when they have lived in an area for a long time. Long—term residence and feelings of attachment and familiarity with the area heighten residents' cognitive ability to identify signs 36 of danger. In doing so, familiarity may enable people to perceive or actually exert control over their exposure to that danger, and hence reduce fear. . . . Neighborhood bonds thus may facilitate the exercise of informal social control mechanisms to reduce the frequency of criminal (or noncriminal but deviant) acts that generate fear.51 This attachment or bonding to a neighborhood was J examined by Riger and Lavraka (1981) who studied the /// relationship between attachment, local social interaction, and attitudes in order to determine factors that would explain why attachment did or did not exist in communities. The authors investigated whether the length of residence is one component of a behavioral dimension of attachment by examining a variety of social conditions or life circumstances they believed could affect the extent of attachment and the formation of social ties within local community settings. These social conditions included the presence or absence of children, race, homeownership, social class and age.52 These authors found partial support for their proposition that community involvement affects the fear of crime levels in their findings that higher levels of officially recorded criminal activity (i.e., assault rates) were associated 37 with more fear of crime. Concomitantly, strong neighborhood bonds and residential ties to the community were associated with lower levels of fear. When the variables were examined together, it was found that the lack . of neighborhood bondedness is the strongest contributor to fear scores, even more important than rates of criminal activity. However, two other measures of community involvement, social interaction with neighbors and use of local facilities, did not appear to have an impact on fear levels in the multivariate analysis. Furthermore, the expectation that community involvement would mediate the relationship between assault rates and fear was not supported.53 Riger's and Lavraka's consideration of why strong neighborhood bonds and roots can be associated with less fear had earlier been considered by Baumer (1974) and Hunter (1970) who had suggested that integration into neighborhood settings mitigated fear by decreasing the number of people who were strangers (since fear of crime‘may be fear of strangers), by increasing the awareness of "strange" people at "strange" times of day, and by increasing the belief in or ability to rely on neighbors for assistance, if needed. In addition, Lewis had found that familiarity with the community may also promote more 38 accurate "mental maps" of dangerous or safe areas within the neighborhood, so that people knOW‘WhiCh areas to avoid.54 Consequently, it is a recognizable research fact that involvement in community settings can be a medium for obtaining information and assistance, and can serve to reduce the stress resulting from the threat of crime.55 Crime Rates, Fear, and Cemmunity InVOlvement The results of the Riger, et.al. study also raised questions about the causal direction of relationships among crime rates, fear, and community involvement. The impact of crime on community cohesiveness has long been a topic of concern to urban observers. Durkheim (1933) suggested that crime may increase solidarity among city dwellers by uniting them in the face of danger. However, Conklin in his study The Impact of Crime (1975) rejects Durkheimis concept of the functionality of deviance in strengthening communities and argues that fear of crime robs citizens of the capacity to trust, isolates them and eventually contributes to the decline of the community. 39 In his study conducted in the late 19603, Conklin (1971, 1975) interviewed respondents in an urban and a suburban community in an eastern metropolitan area to investigate the possibility that the fear of crime undermines the social fabric of community life. Using a perception of crime scale, with items on the relative size of local crime rates as the independent variable, Conklin reported inverse relationship between this measure and re-orted concern for personal safety, interpersonal trust of others and general affect for the community (how satisfactory as a place to live) among the urban but not the suburban sample. Although Conklin admitted the absence of agood measure of the extent of social interaction in the two communities, be reported the perception of crime scale to be unrelated in either locale to participation in local organizations, clubs and social groups or to a question of the number of best friends living in town.56 Conklin found for the urban sample only that those feeling safer were also more trusting of others (r= .19) and were mere satisfied with the community, although the latter relationship was barely significant. He concluded that instead of crime bringing people together and strengthening social bonds in the community, 4o -' feelings of insecurity, distrust and a negative view of the community are produced. Furthermore, while conclusive evidence is lacking, it appears that crime reduces social interaction as fear and suspicion drive people apart. The end result produced, Conklin indicates, is a disorganized community that is unable to exercise informal social control over deviant behavior.S7 Explicit in Conklin's conclusions is that rather than collectively sanctioning the criminal behavior as Durkheim would anticipate, citizens because of fear of crime react in individual ways that would ultimately lead to a breakdown in community cohesion. Further debilitating effects of fear of crime that Conklin believes a community would exhibit include the isolation of strangers and new residents from those who have lived in the community for longer periods of time; feelings of not being safe in the area may lead to a deterioration of social solidarity in the community; and, residents may choose to stay indoors rather than walk on the streets and interact with neighbors. Perceptions of crime may also affect attitudes toward the neighborhood as a whole, including loyalty to the community, desire to move elsewhere, and satisfaction with the area as a place to raise children.58 41 Hartnagel (1979) examined the relationship between the perception and fear of crime on one hand and neighborhood cohesion, social activity and affect for the community on the other, using survey data collected from interviews with a sample of residents of a western Canadian city. He reported the absence of a relationship between either neighborhood cohesion or social activity and fear of crime, although fear was negatively related to satisfaction with the neighborhood as a place to live. However, his pre- diction that the experience of actual victimization would not effect this hypothesized relationship was supported. When various social and residential variables were included with fear of crime in a multiple regression to predict community effect, low fear and older age were found to result in greater affect both for the neighborhood ' and the city. An exploration of possible interaction effects between fear of crime and the social and residential variables did not yield any significant results.59 The reciprocal relationship between impact of crime and attitudes toward locality as presented by Conklin (1975), Lewis and Maxfield (1980), and Riger (1981) suggest that the impact of crime 42 on community residents may be a function of, as well as having an effect on, their attitudes toward the locality. Where a high degree of community solidarity exists, crime and the concomdtant fear that it generates may not be sufficient to destroy community cohesiveness. Where less solidarity prevails, crime may have a strong impact on relations among community dwellers. Henig and Maxfield (1978) suggested that social policies encouraging the participation of residents in community life may reduce fear indirectly by heightening social integration. The findings presented above indicate that increasing residents' familiarity and sense of attachment may have a beneficial impact on fear, while policies designed simply to encourage interaction may not signficiantly change fear levels. Increasing community cohesivenss in itself cannot reduce crime.60 However, by diminishing fear, greater community attachment may serve to both add vital resources to the community and reduce the stressful effects of the threat of victimization to residents. 43 The Need for a Conceptual Framework Many variables have been shown to be related to the fear of crime. Sex is the most consistent and powerful predictor of fear. Women are considerably more afraid of personal crimes than men. The elderly (those over 60) are usually mere afraid than any other age groups. Other demographic characteristics less consistently related to fear are race, income, and education. The effect of all three of these variables appears to depend upon their homogeneity within urban neighborhoods. For example, while nonwhites are generally more fearful than whites, Yaden, et.al. (1973) found white residents of a racially diverse high crime area to be the most fearful. While the precise sources of variation are not clear, fear also consistently varies by place of residence. Although exceptions are found,61 people who live in high crime areas are more fearful than their counterparts in low crime areas. Some evidence indicated that contextual variables such as the crime rate may cause the sources of fear to vary by area.62 44 Demggraphic, Psychosocial and Crime Related Factors Toseland (1982) investigated the relationship of demographic, psychosocial, and crimeerelated factors to fear of crime through discriminant analysis to determine those factors which contributed most to respondents' fear of crime. He discerned that overall, 12 variables were found to explain 45.7 per? cent of the variance in fear of crime. Demographic variables such as sex, the size of the place where respondent lives, age, marital status, and the number of persons living with the respondent were the most important variables discriminating between fearful and nonfearful respondents. He found that psychosocial and crime—related variables to be less important than demographic variables in discriminating between fearful and non-fearful respondents.64 Toseland stated that the association between fear of crime and a person's satisfaction with the neigh- borhood in which he or she lives suggest that, in addition to exposure to crime in the environment, 45 other characteristics of the immediate environment may influence fear of crime. Both physical and psycho- social aspects of the neighborhood environment may increase feelings of security and reduce fear of crime. Physical features include adequate street lighting and visible police protection.65 An interesting aspect from the findings of Toseland is that several variables which were found to be important in previous studies were not found to be related to fear of crime in his study. Education, in- come, and social status, for example, were found to be unrelated to fear of crime. The results suggest that fear of crime affects the well-educated, higher income person as well as the less educated, lower income person. Toseland commented that the discrepancy between these findings and previous findings may be a consequence of previous investigators using univariate analysis procedures to control for one variable at at time. .Thus, the cumulative effects of such variables as the age, sex, and size of the place in which a person lives were not controlled. The multivariate procedure used in 46 Toseland's analysis controls for the effects of all other independent variables on fear of crime and forms a linear equation of the predictors which are best able to discriminate between fearful and nonafearful respondents.66 Toseland's findings of an association of the two psychosocial variables, the respondents' satisfaction with their neighborhood and respondents' perception of the helpfulness of people with fear of crime can perhaps be explained by Garofalo and Laub's (1978) quality of life concept. These two researchers believe that what has been measured and conceptualized as the "fear of crime" has its roots in something more diffuse than the perceived threat of some specific danger in the immediate environment. In some sense, the public appears to be concerned about crime; but, the concern seems to be about something abstract rather than concrete. Garofalo and Laub recommend that one way to re-examine the "fear of crime" concept is through a quality of life framework. The Concept of Quality of Life To date, there have been three approaches used to “measure quality of life. The first two are objective indicators: (1) economic abundance; (2) social indicators 47 including health services, crime, environmental pollution, education, housing, political participation, and recreational activities; and (3) subjective measures involving surveying residents of a community about things such as individual happiness, satisfaction and personal well-being§7_ The goal of Garofalo and Laub is to simply show how the fear of crime can be reconceptualized and placed into the broader framework of the subjective experience of the quality of life. They link the fear of crime to 68 and view the fear of actual the concern for community criminal victimization as inseparable from.the unease generated by other minor forms of public deviance, and that the sum of these anxieties is the basis for the concern with the community. Garofalo and Laub attempt to connect the concern for community to the notion of quality of life and draw out some of the implications of that concern for public policy. ‘ By asking respondents how secure they feel on their neighborhood streets and tapping all the dimensions of the concern for community shown in the model (Chart 1), Garofalo and Laub believe that the fear of actual criminal acts as well as the feeling that one's social situation is unstable, 48 anxiety about strangers, etc. can be tapped. This coneptual framework would explain why elderly and female respondents in attitude surveys record high. "fear of crime" levels despite their relatively low risks of being victimized perhaps because the attitude items tap aspects of concern for the community that are more salient for the elderly and women than for younger respondents and men. Furthermore, the quality of life framework helps to explain why survey respondents appear to be expressing a great amount of fear of crime while indicating that crime is generally an abstract phenomenon worse in other places and affecting others more than their own behavior. Because the fear of actual criminal victimization is only one aspect of the concern for community, it does not have to be a very salient feature in a respondent's life in order for the respondent to indicate anxiety about his or her immediate social situation. Similar to the quality of life concept proposed by Garofalo and Laub (1978) has been the concept dis- cussed earlier in this chapter where citizens“ perceptions of crime are shaped not so much by the neighborhood conditions reflected in the crime statistics, but rather by the level of incivility in their communities.69 49 Indicators of incivility are conditions, more frequently confronted, suggesting that community social control is weak. Garofalo and Laub (1978) demonstrated the cor- respondence between levels of fear and concern about incivility by implying that the fear of crime is triggered by a broad range of neighborhood conditions, and argued that attempts to understand and control that fear should look beyond serious crime incidents as the sole source of the problems. Their model (Figure 1) indicates that fear of crime is exacerbated by signs of disorder, or incivility, perceived by neighborhood residents; however, these various signs of incivility may have little to do with the actual amount of serious crime. As Garofalo and Laub alluded, the subjective experiences of citizens are important as a component of the quality of life indicators. Further, the concern for community is one of the most critical dimensions in the subiective experience of the quality of life. Consequently, the fear of being victimized in some specific criminal act is subsumed within the concern for the community. 50 Figgre‘l A‘Conceptual'Framework* COMPONENTS OF QUALITY OF LIFE Objective Circumstances Economic wealth. Educational, cultural facilities Amount of environmental pollution Housing Extent of crime etc. / Subjective Experiences Concern for community Fear of crime Perceived social instability Anxiety about strangers Perceived moral decline etc. Sense of personal achievement Perceived individual freedom etc. ,*Garofalo and Laub (1978) Quality of Life 51 Quality of Life and Foot Patrol Policing The foot patrol officer or the nostalgic ”beat" copy can be considered in the examination of the quality of life concept. This service-oriented police officer of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries was replaced in the 19303 with the motorized officer. This substitution primarily occurredwhen city officials decided that the officer in the patrol car could cover more area than the foot patrol officer and, more importantly, could respond to emergency calls faster. Consequently, the foot patrol officer was removed from.the community, and as a result of this the community residents became apathetic and alientated in their attitudes towards the police who had once kept order in their communities. Indeed, it was the visibility of the foot patrol officer rather than the actual numbers of police officer readily available by motor car that represented social control to the community. George Kelling indicates that citizens want the police to be accessible to them.and believe that the foot patrol officer makes this possibly by visibility and close 69 The return of the foot patrol officer to proximity. the Flint community permits an examination of the Garofalo and Laub quality of life concept. As Kelling 52 stresses, it is the demand of the citizens for a more service-oriented police officer that has led to the return of foot patrol policing in the community.70 Summary In the discussion thus far, it was reported that the measures of "fear of crime" used since the midel9603 have not successfully measured "fear of crime" because a concise operational definition of what "fear of crime" is remains unclear. The approach recommended and not examined in any study to date with which this author is familiar is the quality of life concept which places crime in a broader perspective and attemptes to measure the citizens' perspective of the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Since the quality of life concept encompasses a broad range of neighborhood conditions tied to the fear of crime, it provided the opportunitv to study the fear of crime from a community perspective. The writer chose to study the quality of life per- spective because the opportunity to examine the concept with data collected from a stusy of foot patrol policing facilitated an examination of the quality of life concept primarily because of its longitudinal panel design. 53 Hopefully, this study will contribute to an increased understanding of the impact of the quality of life concept as a measure of citizens' fear of crime in their neighborhoods. The importance of examining the quality of life concept is evident since the state of the existing knowledge regarding the fear of crime is based on data that is almost exclusively limited to either national public opinion polls or to surveys designed to evaluate specific crime reduction programs. As Baumer stated, the fear of crime data usually focus(es) on the level Of fear, its distributions among sub— groups, and trends; because of the paucity of "independent variables," studies which utilize data from.them often are limited to an examination of demographic differences. Surveys designed to evaluate anti- crime programs must focus on the programs and upon crime reduction, and again the emphasis is on trends and levels. Fear reduction is often only a secondary goal of these programs, and is treated as an effect of the intervention. 72 CHAPTER II Footnotes 1. R. L. Shotland, S. Hayward, C. Young, M. Signorella, K. Mindingall, J. Kennedy, M. Rovine, and E. Danowitz, "Fear of Crime in Residential Communities," Criminology, Volume 17, Number 1, (May, 1979), 25. 2. Ibid., 35. 3. Ibid. 4. Terry L. Baumer, "Research on Fear of Crime in the United States," Victimology: An International Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 3/4, 1978, 255. 5. Wesley G. Skogan, "Public Police and Fear of Crime in Large merican Cities," in J. A. Gardner, editor, Public Law and Public Policy, New York: Praege, 1977, 5. 6. See, Crime in the United States, 1972. 7. Michael J. Hindelang, "Public Opinion Regarding Crime, Criminal Justice, and Related Topics," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 12, Number 2, July 1974,3I03-106. 8. Michael D. Maltz, "Evaluation of Crime Control Programs," U. S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Administration Assistance, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, April 1972. 9. Charles W. Thomas and Jeffrey M. Hyman, "Percep- tions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Percep- tions of Police Performance," Journal of Police Science and Administration, Volume 5, Number 3, 307. 10. John E. Conklin, The Impact of Crime, New York: Macmillan, 1975. 11. Frank Clemente and Michael Kleinman, "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis," Social Forces, Volume 56, Number 2, December 1977, 520. 54 55 12. Ronald W. Toseland, "Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable?," Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 10, Number 3, 199. 13. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., "Public Reaction to Crime in the Streets," American Scholar, Volume 40, Number 1, Autumn 1971, 607-608. 14. Deirdre Gaquin, "Measuring Fear of Crime: The National Crime Survey's Attitude Data," Victimolo . An International Journal, Volume 3, Numbers , 4-318. 15. Skogan and Maxfield, gp;gi£., 21. 16. Ibid., 22. 17. Hindelang, 924312. 18. In Hindelang, 924215. 19. Furstenberg, o .cit. 20. Skogan, gpégi£,, 23. 21. Toseland, gpggig., 199-200. 22. Hindelang, o .cit., 103-106. 23. James Garofalo and John Laub, "The Fear of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective," Victimology: An Inter— national Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 3- -4, 1978, 242- 243. 24. Allen E. Liska, Joseph J. Lawrence, and Andrew Sanchirico, "Fear of Crime as a Social Fact," Social Forces, Volume 60, Number 3, March 1982, 761. 25. Skogan and Maxfield, op.cit., 110. 26. Ibid., 123-124. 27. Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Rebecca Adams, Carol A. Heimer, Kim Lane Scheppele, Tom.W. Smith, and Garth D. Taylor, Crime and Punishment--ChangingAttitudes in America, San Francisco: Jossey- -Bass Inc. , Publishers, -4 . 56 28. see Garofalo and Laub, Op. cit. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., 243. 31. Ibid., 245. 32. Ibid. 33. Sparks, 1981, 17—24. 34. Ibid., 17-24. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. A. D. Biderman, et. al, Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes toward Law EnfOrcement. Washington, D. C. U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967, 160. 38.~ Dan A. Lewis and Greta Salem, "Community Crime Prevention: An Analysis of a DevelOping Strategy, an unpublished paper for the Reactions to Crime Project Center for Urban Affairs, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, July 1980, 1-19. 39. Biderman, op.cit., 16. 40. Ibid. 41. Stinchcombe, op.Cit. 42. Dan A. Lewis and M. G. Maxfield, "Fear in the Neighborhoods: An Investigation of the Impact of Crime," Journal of Research in Crime and'Delinquengy, Volume 17, July 1980, 160al89. 43. Lewis and Salem, Op.Cit., 16. 44. Skogan and Maxfield, op.c1t., 19. 45. Ibid., 81. 46. Ibid. 57 47. Ibid., 95. 48. Ibid., 161—162. 49. Hunter, Symbolic Communities, 9. 50. Skogan and‘Maxfield,'Qp;gi£., 95'96 51. Ibid. 52. Stephanie Riger and Paul J. Lavrakas, "Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods, 'American Journal of community Psychology, Volume 9, Number 1, 1981, 56-58. 53. Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Margaret T. Gordon, "Community Ties and Urbanites' Fear of Crime: An Ecological Investigation, 'American Journal of Community Psychology, Volume 9, Number 6, December I981, 660-661. 54. Lewis, see Note 6 in Riger, 1981, 663. 55. Riger, LeBailly, and Gordon, op.cit., 662. 56. Timothy F. Hartnagel, "The Perception and Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect," SOCial ForCes, Volume 58, Number 1, September 1979, 178. 57. Conklin, op.cit., 99. 58. Ibid., 375. 59.' Hartnagel, gp;gi£, 60. Lewis and Maxfield, op.cit. 61. Ibid. 62; Conklin, op;cit. 63. Baumer, op.¢it., 260. 64. Toseland,‘gp;gig. 65. Ibid., 207. 58 66. Ibid. 67. Frank M. Andrews and Stephen B. Withey, SOcial Indicators of wellsBeing:’ Americans' Perceptionof Life Quality, New York: Plenum Press, 1976. 68. see also Conklin, 1975. 69. Lewis-and Maxfield, op.cit. 70. George Kelling, "Police Field Services and Crime: The Presumed Effects of a Capacity," Crime and Delinquengy April 1978, 173-184. 71. Ibid. 72. Baumer, op.cit., 254. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY As the review of relevant literature concluded in Chapter II, the ambiguity of the terms "quality of life" and "fear of crime" motivated this study. The literature indicated that due to the lack of precision of conceptuali- aztion and measurement, social science researchers are faced with severe restrictions when attempting to measure how community residents perceive "quality of life" and "fear of crime". Consequently, this study attempts to examine the conceptual framework of Garofalo and Laub (1978) as an effort to re-define "fear of crime" through the quality of life concept these authors recommended. In this chapter, the design and methodology for testing the quality of life and fear of crime concepts are presented. To measure the citizens' perception of quality of life and fear of crime as a component of the quality of life framework, this study used both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis. Since the study is a social impact assessment of how foot patrol 59 60 policing may affect citizens' perceptions of quality of life and fear of crime, a qualitative description of the demographic characteristics of the city of Flint is necessary in order to present the objective character- istics (see Garofalo and Laub model - Figure 1). Social ImpaCt A33essment: An Introduction to the MethOdi Social impact assessment is the evaluation of policy alternatives in terms of their estimated con- sequences.1 The primarygoal of social impact assess— ment is to facilitate decision making by determing the full range of costs and benefits of alternative proposed courses of action. The secondary goal is to improve the design and administration of policies in order to ameliorate the disbenefits and to increase the benefits.2 The major use of social impact assessment (SIA) has been in the evaluation of alternative designs for public construction projects, e.g., highway construction projects, dams, urban renewal, and pipelines.3 This study of foot patrol is an attempt to determine the effect this type of policing has on the citizens perceptions of quality of life and the relationship to fear of crime in the neigh- borhood. 61 One primary reason for using social impact assessment is cost effectiveness. Finsterbusch (1977) indicates that most social impact assessment sponsors discount the utility of large-scale sample surveys on a simple cost-benefit basis (that is, such surveys are very costly compared to other data-generating techniques and the results are often questionable). Surveys, however, do provide information not obtained through other means. Therefore, Finsterbusch recommends the usage of minisurveys (sample sizes less than 100) because of their cost-effectiveness in performing four basic tasks: estimating a range of parameter values; modifying expert opinions; testing the applicability of previous research findings to a given situation; and using results of each wave to raise new hypotheses and modifying the questionnaire to pursue new leads and areas of interest.4 Minisurveys may have an additional advantage if a panel study or some variation is utilized. The small size mekes it possible to devote more of an effort to locating and maintaining the original panel over time. Especially if the original group is selected in a random 62 fashion, this minipanel study can be an information adjunct to the assessment effort.5 Social ImpaCt Assessment:‘ The Flint Foot Patrol Study The Flint Foot Patrol study meets the criteria of Finsterbusch's description of cost effectivenss for a variety of reasons. The primary reason is attributable to the length of the questionnaire instrument. This instrument was extensive in its coverage of not only quality of life and fear of crime indicators, but items designed to measure citizens' perceptions of the per- formance of the city police department, citizens' opinion of the "ideal" police department, and citizens' perceptions of "dangerousness" not only in Flint, but other large American cities as well. As a result of this comprehensive survey instrument, interviewing residents took from one-and-a-half hours to two-and-a- half hours. Consequently, in order to be cost-effective, a panel study was utilized and randomly selected. A description of how this panel was selected is described in a later section of this chapter. The next section of this chapter discusses the three elements of social impact assessment and how they were 63 used in the Flint study. These elements include: (1) identification of program objectives; (2) identie fication of the associated evaluation criteria (Or "measures of effectiveneSS”) for which data will be sought; and (3) identification of the releVant population segments or clientele groups on which the evaluation should attempt to measure impacts. Because these elements are interrelated, they are discussed together.6 Identification of PrOgram ObjeCtives The goals of the Flint Foot Patrol were: (1) to decrease the amount of actual or perceived criminal activity (2) to increase the citizens' perception of personal safety (3) to deliver to Flint residents a type of law enforcement service consistent with the community needs and the ideals of modern police practice (4) to create a community awareness of crime problems and methods of dealing with them (5) to develop citizen volunteer action in support of and under the direction of the police department aimed at various target crimes‘ (6) to eliminate citizen apathy about crime reporting to the police (7) to increase protection for women, the aged, and children. 64 Identification of the Associated Evaluation Criteria The purpose of this study is to examine the citizens' perception of safety or "fear of crime" in the quality of life conceptual framework proposed by Garofalo and Laub which suggests that citizens' perceptions of crime is a component of the quality of life model (Figure 1) based on objective and subjective measures. Consequently, by examining the quality of life model, the possibility of pinpointing components of community life that effect citizens' fear of crime may be derived. Identification of the Relevant Population Data for this study were collected between the months of June 1979 and December 1981 by the research team directed by Robert C. Trojanowicz and supported by a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. As a member of the research team, this author was involved in the development of the instrument, data collection phases of that project as well as in the data preparation and analysis phases. A description of how the data set was collected is presented at this point. 65 Data Collection and Sample Selection This study is a substudy of a larger study conducted on foot patrol policing in Flint, Michigan for a three year period. The data for the sample (panel) that is used in this dissertation is discussed in this section. During the summer of the first year of the foot patrol study (1979) a community resident panel was selected. The residents that were to be interviewed were selected randomly by cluster sampling from the fourteen foot patrol neighborhoods. By this method a panel of residents was selected for the first year resulting in an N of 84. Each of the residents were personally interviewed with a questionnaire that had both fixed-alternative (Likert scale) and open-ended questions. The interview questions were designed to provide data on variables including experience of crime, crime reporting, fear of crime, effects of crime on behavior, evaluation of the local police, recommendation for police improvement, awareness of the foot patrol program itself and the number and kind of activities foot patrol officers conducted. The face-to—face interview lasted from.one to two-and-one-half hours. This panel was re-interviewed the third year (1981) of 66 the foot patrol study by telephone with the same questionnaire instrument. A Demographic Description of the Panel The panel selected in the first year of the study (1979) had a N of 84. The panel, as is typical in household surveys, was female, 75% (n=63). Most of the panel of neighborhood residents have lived in Flint at least ten years, with 60% living there more than 20 years. Slightly less than 10% of the panel have had less than three years residency in Flint. The panel of residents, then, have had, on the average, a lengthy experience with Flint, its problems, its neighborhoods and its police force. Not very many of the resident panel have had much recent experience outside the city of Flint. The effect of this rela- tively stable population may be that residents compare Flint safety issues to some ideal, to some state of safety in the past or use non—experiential basis for evaluating the comparative safety of Flint and the quality of police protection. 7 The panel by the third year of the study (1981) had decreased to an N of 41. This decrease can be attributed to 26% unavailable due to illness, death, or moving from the neighborhood and 14% who declined to be 67 a member of the panel by the third year. However, the panel by the third year was equivalent to the first year (1979) panel members with 78% of the panel for the third year characterized as females who have lived in Flint over ten years. In addition, the race of the panel was similar for both testing periods with 54% (n=22) of the panel characterized as black and 46% (n=19) of the panel as white in the third year. The same conclusions can be made pertaining to the demographics of the third year panel in relation to the first year panel pertaining to length of experience with Flint, its problems, its neighborhoods and its police force. Data Collection As Finsterbusch indicates, other informative sources of information should be used in conjunction with social impact assessment studies utilizing a small sample size. To meet Finsterbusch's recommendation, in addition to the surveys, crime statistics were gathered from the police department's complaint forms and coded and analyzed by type of crime for the years 1979, 1980, 1981. In addition, crime statistics for the fourteen foot patrol areas prior to the establishment of the foot patrol program.were collected so that pre- and post-comparisons 68 could be made during the threevyear period to determine upward or downward crime trends. A description of the independent and dependent variables of this study is presented in the next section. The Independent Variable In this longitudinal panel study, there was only one independent variable: year to measure present or absence of foot patrol and length of foot patrol presence in the fourteen neighborhoods. In addition, 8 control variables were considered because they have been used in previous "fear of crime" and "quality of life" studies. These variables included: sex, race, live alone/others, own/rent, age, years lived in Flint, years lived in neighborhood, and, where grew up; i.e. rural/urban. The "quality of life" conceptual framework and "fear of crime" measure are compared for Year 1 (implementation of foot patrol project) and Year 3 (the final year of the evaluation). The Dependent Variable The responses to two sets of questions on the citizen survey were used to measure individual percep- tions of quality of life and fear of crime. 69 The first set of questions focued on the extent that citizens perceived the subjective quality of life in their neighborhoods by asking to what extent the problems of environment, parking-traffic, inadequate shopping, crime, public transportation, schools and problems with neighbors existed in their neighborhoods. A second set of questions addressed how "fear of crime" affected citizens' activities including social activity, walking in the daytime, walking in the evening (6-10 p.m.), walking at night (after 10 p.m.), child supervision and entertainment-recreation. The independent and dependent variables have included three basic measures which must be defined to clarify their usage in this study: fear of crime, quality of life and extent of physical rootedness in the ‘neighborhood. In addition, a definition of crime rates is included for descriptive purposes only. Fear of Crime has traditionally been measured by the global question: "How safe do you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?" For purposes of this study, fear of crime is seen as part of the quality of life model which includes living conditions such as environment, parking— 70 traffic, shopping, public transportation, schools, and problems with neighbors; in addition to crime. Extent of Physical Rootedness in the Neighborhood is measured by questions asking how many years the resident has lived in Flint, in the neighborhood and whether or not the resident owns or rents his/ her dwelling. Quality of Life in this study is defined based on research conducted by Campbell and Converse at the University of Michigan. Their conception of quality of life is based upon the individual's perception. Emphasisis placed upon the assessment of satisfaction that a person derives, or fails to derive, from his/her life in general and from particular aspects of it. Crime Rates are defined by using crime statistics for Part I crimes of the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) which includes breaking and entering, car theft, assault, vandalism, robbery, criminal sexual assault, larceny from.a home, larceny from a person, and larceny from a vehicle. These crime rates were compiled from the complaint forms of the Flint Police 71 Department for the years 1978 (one year before implementation of the foot patrol program), 1979, 1980 and 1981. These figures can be, therefore, compared with the overall yearly crime statistics sub- mitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to measure the incidence and type of crime in the city of Flint for the four—year period. The above defined measures are used in this secondary analysis of a study in order to examine the correlative hypothesis of this study that the presence of a foot patrol officer may have a contributing effect on the way in which citizens perceive fear of crime and quality of life in their neighborhoods. This correlative hypothesis is premised on the citizens' perception of the symbolic nature of the foot patrol officer who contributes to neighborhood safety because of his/her presence in the neighborhood creates a fuller awareness of neighborhood conditions and of the citizens residing there. 72 Quality of Life Conceptual Framework: Application to this Study In this study, Garofalo and Laub's (1978) quality of life conceptual framework is examined to ascertain the validity of the concept that fear of crime is related to citizens' perception of the quality of life in their neighborhoods. In their medel (Figure 1) presented in Chapter II, Garofalo and Laub defined neighborhood quality of life as constituted by objective measures and subjective experi- ences. Objective measures include economic wealth; educa« tional, cultural facilities; amount of environmental pollution; housing; and extent of crime. Subjective experiences include community concerns of: perceived social instability; anxiety about strangers; perceived meral decline; a sense of personal achievement; and, perceived individual freedom, Garofalo and Laub (1978) have not defined how these objective circumstances and subjective experiences are to be operationalized in research studies. Therefore, the following section describes how these issues are operation- alized in this study. 73 Operationalization of Garofalo and Laub's Opality Of Life Conceptual Framework Objective Circumstances Social impact assessment has been used to qualitatively de3cribe the issues that Garofalo and Laub have included in their categorization: objective circumstances. A description of the objective cir— cumstances of economic wealth; educational, cultural facilities; amount of environmental pollution; housing; and extent of crime are presented in Chapter IV. This material was derived primarily from.secondary sources including census reports, housing reports, newspaper accounts, and crime reports of the Flint Police Department. Subjective Experiences Since Garofalo and Laub have not specifically stated how the subjective experiences of the quality of life' model are to be defined when they are the units of study, this section addresses how subjective experiences have been operationalized in this study. During the 19703 the National Crime Survey was con- ducted in a number of large American cities to examine fear of crime. In the que3tionnnaire instrument used, a 74 number of the questions were designed to determine to what extent certain problems were considered detrimental by residents. Questions were also included to measure citizens' feelings of personal safety in their neighborhoods. It is these two National Crime Survey (NCS) questions that are used in this study to test the subjective experiences of citizens regarding their perception of quality of life and fear of crime. The components of the first NCS question addressing the resident's perception of the extent of neighborhood problems (used in this study for the quality of life indicators) were intended to discern how much of a problem certain aspects of the neighborhood living created for the citizens residing there. This question was asked on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being no problem at all; 3 being somewhat of a problem; and 5 being a very great problem. Residents were asked how much of a problem each of the following were in their neighborhood: environment; parking/traffic; inadequate shopping; crime; public transportation; schools; and, problems with neighbors. This NCS "quality of life" question is used in this study to address Garofalo and Laub's (1978) concerns for the community. NCS item."environment" (defined as the physical problems in the neighborhood of pollution, inadequate waste collection, litter, abandoned cars, and deteriorated housing); problems with schools and 75 neighbors; and parking/traffic,in addition to public transportation services are all used in this study to address Garofalo and Laub's subjective experiences items of anxiety about strangers and perceived moral decline. As the review of literature suggests residents 10 no longer know their neighbors and problems of incivility, i.e., abandoned cars, drugs, curfew 11 have led to residents’ violations and vandalism feelings of disorder (Social instability) and moral decline. Perceived individual freedom is represented in this study by residents' feelings of personal safety in their neighborhoods including decisions made regarding neighborhood social activity; to walking in the daytime; to walking in the evening (from 6'10 p.ms); walking at night (after 10 p.m.); supervision of children; and, decisions made regarding going out for entertainment and/or recreation. There is no examination of Garofalo and Laub's item personal achievement in this study. Garofalo and Laub have not defined how "fear of crime" should be measured in their quality of life framework. As the literature supports, traditionally, fear of crime has been measured as how safe residents felt walking in their neighborhood at night (after 10 p.m.). 76 However, as the literature reports and Garofalo and Laub reiterate, this traditional measure has not been successful in defining the larger concept which "fear of crime" encompasses. In this study, by using the Garofalo model of quality of life based on the National Crime Survey test items of the extent of neighborhood problems and by an examination of fear of crime based on the personal safety issue question (also derived from the National Crime Survey questionnaire), fear of crime is defined as personal safety decisions made by residents in relation to neighborhood social activity, decision to walk during the daytime, decision to walk in the evening (from 6-10 p.m.), decision to walk at night (after 10 p.m,), supervision of children, and enter- tainment/recreation judgments. The intention of this study is to use these two definitions, quality of life and fear of crime as operationalized in assessing what relationship exists between the quality of life and fear of crime indicators and how they are related to the quality of life conceptual framework of Garofalo and Laub. 77 .Measurement of Quality of Life and Fear of crime This study focuses on the measurements of the interrelatedness of the items in the quality of life and fear of crime scales and intents to test the pragmatic validity of the items included in the scales. To measure this interrelatedness, factor analysis will be implemented as a statistical procedure to identify the underlying patterns, factors, or dimensions of both quality of life and fear of crime among a series of scale items. Since it remains unclear what entails fear of crime, the intention of this study is to examine the quality of life and fear of crime variables from a theoretical perspective rather than as a measure of change over three years in order to refine the fear of crime and quality of life components. Factor analysis is used in this study because it has testing theory as one of its functions.12 In this study, the SPSS factor procedure was conducted with raw data. Proceeding the actual factor analysis, a principal component analysis was used to determine the appropriate number of factors. Principal- component analysis is a relatively straightforward method 78 of transforming a given set of variables into a new set of composite variables or principal components that are orthogonal (uncorrelated) to each other. The appropriate number of factors was determined from the percent of variance explained by different numbers of factors, and by the size of the eigenvalues. Next, principal factor solutions with varimax rotations were computed. In this analysis Kaiser Varimax rotation Was used because it redistributes the variance in such a way as to simplify the complexity of each factor rather than each variable. Factor-scale scores for each observation were produced and these scales were added to the data set as new variables. Generally, factor analysis generates dimensions (factors) or hypothetical clusters that different items 13 In this study, the attitudinal seem to have in common. scales which have been administered to respondents on quality of life and fear of crime were examined. By using factor analysis on the NCS scales operationalized for this study, an assumption is made that both quality of life and fear of crime are separate dimesnions. As the reivew of literature indicated, measures of "fear of crime" in the past have not been derived from.a reliable definition of "fear of crime". These measures 79 have been independently examined as selectively being responsible for fear rather than conceptualizing that perhaps more than one variable constitutes fear of crime. In addition, the usage of factor analysis could show if there were different dimensions of (1) fear of crime and (2) quality of life. If the test results in the quality of life conceptual framework reveal that fear of crime is unidimensional, an examination of changes between Year 1 and Year 3 will be conducted by computing individual factor scores for Year 1 and Year 3 derived from the weights of the factors previously obtained. If the quality of life conceptual framework is not unidimensional, then the traditional measures for fear of crime will be factor analyzed to ascertain if these measures are unidimensional. If the test results reveal that fear of crime is unidimensional, an examination of changes between Year 1 and Year 3 will be directed by computing individual factor scores for Year 1 and Year 3 derived from the weights of the factors previously obtained. 80 In addition to examining data for possible changes in quality of life and fear of crime between Year 1 and Year 3, data will also be examined for differences between selected demographic variables including sex, age, race, whether the panel member lived alone or with others, owned home vs. renting, rural or urban-born, years resided in Flint and years resided in neighborhood with respect to quality of life and fear of crime. Data analysis was undertaken at the Michigan State University Computer Center. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed for the analysis. 81 CHAPTER III Footnotes 1. Kurt Finsterbusch, UnderStanding SOcial Impacts: Assessing the Effects of Public ProjeCts, BeverIy Hills: SagePublications, Inc., 1980, 13. 2. ‘ “ and C. P. Wolf, editors. Methodology of SociaIilmpact Assessment, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowdén, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc. , 1977, 2. 3. Ibid., 14. 4 Ibid. 5. Soderstrom, 1982. 6. Harry P. Hatry, Richard E. Winnie, and Donald M. Fisk, Practical Program Evaluation for State and Local Government Officials, 'Washington, D. C. The Urban Institute, 1973, 23. 7. Robert C. Trojanowicz, et.al., An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan, n.d. 8. Alexander Szalai and Frank M. Andrews, Editors, The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980, 28. 9. Conklin, op.cit. 10. See Lewis, Salem, Skogan and Maxfield, op.cit. 11. Kim and Mueller. 12.‘ Hagen, 1982, 171. CHAPTER IV FLINT: A DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CITY AND THE FOURTEEN FOOT PATROL NEIGHBORHOODS This chapter has several interrelated intentions. The primary purpose is to present a demographic descrip- tion in general of the city of Flint and in particular the 14 neighborhoods selected to receive foot patrol officer services. A second purpose is to explain how the foot patrol program.was implemented in the Flint neighborhoods according to the tenets of Sower's norma- tive sponsorship theory. Finally, the material presented in this chapter depicts how conditions that have been defined as incivilities (abandoned buildings, vandalism, juvenile related issues, and drugs) by Lewis, Salem, Skogan and Maxfield were the major concerns of citizens in the 14 neighborhoods requesting foot patrol officer services. Normative Sponsorship Theory: Theoryjinto Practice In the city of Flint, Michigan a program which has become known as the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program (NFPP) 82 83 was developed to combat what Flint's residents and city officials considered to be hindrances to effective crime prevention: (1) a lack of comprehensive neighborhood organization and involvement, and (2) a lack of personal contact and interaction between the Flint Police Department and the Flint community. This program was conceptualized late in 1977 when city officials, the Flint Police Department and the citizens of the City of Flint proposed to establish a neighborhood foot patrol program in fourteen target areas. This combined endeavor reflects the growing concern being experienced across the country: fear of crime and perceptions of personal safety in the neighborhoods. Furthermore, this program involving the presence of a foot patrol officer, or the "beat cop" symbolizes the residents' nostalgia for the cohesive community of the past where neighbor knew neighbor and the police officer walked his beat and knew the residents and particular problems of his assigned "beat". Consequently, to address the problem of lack of community cohesiveness and increased feelings of fear of crime in the city neighborhoods, a city-wide meeting was held in November 1977 inviting citizen input into the crime-reduction program. In January 1978, another city- 84 wide meeting was convened. It was decided that since there was such an interest shown by the citizens of Flint that meetings would be held at the neighborhood level within each of the twelve planning districts. These meetings were conducted during February, March and April with the aid and assistance of the Citizen's Action Center and the Neighborhood Service Representatives. Representatives of the Flint Police Department attended these meetings to explain the Neighborhood Officer proposal to neighborhood residents. An important component of the community policing project was to involve the residents in the planning of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program from the beginning. This component is a basic tenet of normative sponsorship theory which, simply stated, proposes that a community program will only be sponsored if it is normative (within the limits of established standards) to all persons and interest groups involved. 1 Trojanowicz and Morash explain that for normative sponsorship theory to be successful each group involved and interested in program implementation has to be able to justify the common group goal within its own patterns of values, norms, and goals. "The more congruent the values, beliefs, and goals of all participating groups, 85 the easier it will be for them.to agree on common goals.‘ However, Trojanowicz and Morash indicate that the parti- cipating groups do not necessarily have to justify their involvement or acceptance of a group goal for the same reasons. 2 Consequently, through normative sponsorship an important component of the community policing project involved the Flint residents in the planning of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program from the beginning. At the initial neighborhood meetings the residents were asked if they wanted a neighborhood foot patrol and, if so, to designate the location of the target, or experi- mental area. After defining the target area boundaries, the residents expressed their special problems and needs, as well as the hours they would need the foot patrol and the number of officers they would require. The residents also decided where the neighborhood base would be located. It was suggested that they choose a central location common to the entire community. They also came to a decision as to how often they wanted to meet with this officer for discussion and to review sessions; these sessions would be a supplement to any other meetings the officer himself/herself would have with the community. 86 At a third city-wide meeting in March 1978 the various groups from.the smaller meetings discussed, as a district, what the final district plan would be with advice and input provided by the Flint Police Depart- ment. At the conclusion of this meeting the benefits of a foot patrol program in Flint were considered to be two-fold. First, the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program would serve to stimulate the development of comprehensive anti-crime neighborhood organizations in each of the fourteen target areas. The neighborhood officers would assist in the development of neighborhood organizations by_giving expert advice and assistance in the develop- ment of these neighborhood organizations. Secondly, the neighborhood officers would be in close contact, day- to-day, with the neighborhoods to which they were assigned and would, therefore, be in a position to discover potential problem situations before they got out of hand. The second component of Sower's normative sponsor- ship theory, i.e., technical assistance (advice from a neutral person), was next considered by the agency which funded the foot patrol program, The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. The Mott Foundation in conjunction with the Flint Police Department realized that in order to 87 implement a foot patrol program, specialized training with needed to acquaint police officers with the aspects of neighborhood crime prevention and organization of block clubs and neighborhood associations. Under the auspices of the Mott Foundation, two sergeants assigned to the foot patrol project attended sessions at the National Institute of Crime Prevention at Louisville, Kentucky where they received specialized training in crime prevention and neighborhood organization. Importantly, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation recognized that the foot patrol program.needed further technical assistance to guide, direct, and eventually evaluate the experimental? police program. Therefore, through cooperation with the Flint Police Department, city officials, and the community residents of the fourteen target areas, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation allocated funding to the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice and the Social Science Research.Bureau. The director of the evalua- tion provided technical assistance when requested by the Flint community. It is important to stress that Sower's description of technical assistance is that it is provided only upon community request. After the specific assistance is rendered, the technical 88 assistance unit withdraws until further requests are made. 3 The last tenet of Sower's normative sponsorship theory is that challenge is more effective than conflict as a means of program development. Normative sponsor- ship theory postulates that programs that challenge the skeptics through involvement, participation, and cooperative action will be more effective than programs that are conflict oriented. Not only do the skeptics and the cynics gain support when there is a conflict, interest groups polarize their positions. 4 Challenge has certainly been evident in Flint in the implementation of a foot patrol program, What started in fourteen specified areas of Flint in January of 1979 was implemented throughout the city of Flint in August 1982 with the passage by the Flint residents of an increased two point millage to pay for foot patrol officers in all city neighborhoods. Clearly, the skeptics in Flint have been challenged with the idea of a community foot patrol officer and, through involvement, participation, and cooperative action, have effectively implemented a policing style with possibilities that are endless and have yet to be discovered. This program could very well set a precedent 89 that will change and expand the very essence of tradi- tional policing, just as community education changed the role of traditional education in Flint and across the country. Flint: A History of the City Flint is in Genesee County which is located in the southeastern part of the State of Michigan, approxi— mately 60 miles northwest of Detroit. Genesee County is Michigan's fourth most populous county, and it is located at the northern fringe of the country's industrial belt. Flint is the largest urban place in Genesee County covering 32.4 square miles (84.0 square kilometers) with a density per square mile of 4,926 (1,900 square kilometers).5 By national standards Flint is a medium sized metropolitan center and since 1906 when W.C. Durant began operation Buick Motor Car Company, the city has been dependent on the automobile industry. 90 In 1900, Flint had a population of only 13,103, and because of the mushrooming growth of General Motors that number grew to 156,482 by 1930. The city of Flint continued to grow steadily in population. In 1950 the population was 163,143; in 1960, 196,940; however, the growth within the city limits has leveled off since 1960 with a population of 193,317 by 19706 and by 1979 Flint had a population of 169,600.7 Since social impact assessment almost always begins with demographic information, the next section provides the characteristics of the impacted population in order to ascertain changes the project or policy will cause. Flint: A Demographic Analysis In 1979 when the foot patrol program.began, the city of Flint was a highly industrialized city of 169,600 almost totally dependent upon the automotive industry. In 1970 the city's population had only declined by 3,623 from the 1960 Census. However, the 1980 Census figures indicate that the population of the city of Flint had dropped to 159,611 or 43,706 from the 1970 Census figures. When population statistics are examined for the census periods 1970-1980, a percentage 91 change in population for Flint is -l7.4 percent.8 Concomitantly alarming was the fact that by 1981 Flint had the second highest rate of unemployment in America. Indeed, by November of 1982, Flint led the nation's metropolitan areas with an unemployment rate of 23.4 percent.9 The population decline is attributable to the demise of the automotive industry which had been the primary source of employment for the Flint community since 1906. A high percentage of the city's population had migrated from the southern states for the purpose of employment in the automotive industry. Flint has been described as a predominantly blue collar community. Crime Rates for Flint and Cities of Similar Size 10 Table 1 (see Appendix) provides the rate per 100,000 of offenses reported in Flint. The crime rate steadily increased between the years of 1978 and 1981, the ending period of the three year evaluation study. A comparison of 1981 to 1978 reveals that only murder and automobile theft decreased--murder rate from 23 to 21 per 100,000 and automobile theft from 776 to 594. All other crimes-- including rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and 1arceny--increased in Flint during this time period. 92 As Table 8 in the Appendix illustrates, Flint in comparison to other cities of a similar size throughout the nation, has a higher rate of serious crime per 100,000 offenses reported in every category. These figures should be considered temperately, since methods of reporting crime differ from locale to locale, but the impression they convey is probably accurate. Flint has a higher rate of serious crime, city-wide, than similar sized cities in the nation. In relation to other American cities, a Northwestern study examined 396 cities (every city in the country with more than 50,000 residents) and concluded that in the 31 years from 1948 to 1978 there was a similar rise in crime rates for cities that bore no resemblance to each other. The Official Federal Bureau of Investigation for the same time period indicated that the rate of serious crime increased from 1,687 crimes per 100,000 people to 5,109 per 100,000. In 1979 the rate of serious crime continued to climb to 5,521 per 100,000; in 1980 it accelerated to 5,900 per 100,000 and in 1981 the rate of serious crime slightly decreased to 5,800 (See Table 8 in Appendix). 93 What the rate per 100,000 of serious crime from these periods indicate is that the rate of crime in Flint and in the United States has steadily increased. Conclusions of a 3% year study done for the Justice Department by Northwestern University's Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research concluded was that crime had grown at a rapid rate in all of America's cities, regardless of their size, location, minority populations or whether they are gaining or losing population. The study concluded that crime was "no longer a local problem to be dealt with on a local level but a nationwide phenomenon growing at almost the same rate from Long Island to Los Angeles, beyond the control of local governments."11 Table 8 depicts the crime statistics in the fourteen foot patrol areas between the years of 1978 and 1981. The crimes listed include burglary, automobile theft, assault, vandalism, robbery, criminal sexual assault, larceny from.a home, larceny from a person,.and larceny from.a vehicle. 94 In 1978, the year before the inception of the foot patrol program, there were 4,085 crimes reported in the fourteen eXperimental areas; In 1981, the final year of the three year evaluation, there were 3,731 crimes reported in the fourteen experimental areas. Crime was down in all categories except for robbery and burglary and these two crimes were up much higher for Flint in general; robbery was up 31% in general compared to 20% in the fourteen foot areas; burglary was up 57% in general and 31% in the fourteen foot areas when 1978 is compared to 1981. Although there was a decrease in crime over the three year period, there was an increase between 1980 and 1981. All of the evidence suggests that this is to be directly associated with the expansion of the boundaries of the fourteen patrol areas during the latter part of the program evaluation--a statistical artifact. There was also a sharp reduction in the number of calls fOr service during the three year evaluation period. There were 678 calls for service in 1978 and 384 in l981—-a decrease of 43.4%. 95 Table provides additional crime statistic information. For example, the percentage of each crime for each foot patrol area is shown. Comparisons between 1978 and 1981 can be made for all crimes and all foot patrol districts. A Composite DeScriptiOn of the Fourteen Flint Foot Patrol Areas When the foot patrol program was implemented in 1979, the citizens through a series of city-wide'meet- ings during the 1977-78 period had ascertained the boundaries of the original fourteen foot patrol areas. This community decision, therefore, made it difficult to describe these fourteen areas by a comparison with more traditional sources such as census information or school district delineations. Therefore, the informa- tion characterizing these areas was selected to describe these areas for the period May 1, 1979 to April 30, 1982 and was primarily gathered from.four sources: (1) the original proposal submitted to the Mott Foundation for funding consideration; (2) The Flint Process: A Quality of Life Study (June 1978); (3) comments and field observations of the foot patrol project community consultant; and, (4) information from "Our 96 Neighborhoods" section of The Flint Journal (December, 1981). The composite descriptions from the above sources of the fourteen Flint foot patrol areas are presented in the Appendix. In the following Chapter V, findings are presented. 97 CHAPTER IV ' FOOtnotes 1. Robert C. Trojanowicz and Merry A. Morash, Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts and Central, Third Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1983, 300. 2. Ibid., 300-301. 3. Ibid., 302. 4. Ibid. 5.1980 Census of Population, Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population, washington, D. C. UnitedIStates Government Printing Office, 1981, 135 6. Michigan Statistical Abstract, 1981. 7. Sales and Marketing Management. 1980 surve of Buying Power, Volume 125, Number 2, July 28 I980, 108. 8. 'Michigan Statistical AbstraCt, op.cit., 12. 9. Lansing State Journal, January 19, 1983, l. 10. Material for the rest of this chapter was taken from "An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan, " East Lansing: Michigan State University, n. d. written by Robert C. Trojanowicz, et.al. Donna C. Hale was a member of the research team involvedixrwriting this monograph including Robert Baldwin, Dennis Banas, David Dugger, Hazel Harden, Philip Marcus, Stephen McGuire, John McNamara, Francisco Medrano, Catherine Smith, Paul Smyth and Jesse Thompson. 11. The Flint Journal, March 3, 1982, B-lO. CHAPTER V FINDINGS Panel Characteristics In order to gain some familiarity with the 41 individuals who constituted the panel, 8 socio— demographic variables were examined including sex, age, race, whether the panel member lived alone or with others, owned home vs. renting, rural or urban-born, years resided in Flint and years resided in neighborhood. The panel is predominately female, 78% (n-32); racially equal, with Blacks accounting for 54% (n=22) and Whites 46% (n=19). The age of the panel ranged from 22 to 82 years of age with a mean of 52 years and a standard deviation of 17 years indicating a somewhat normally shaped distribution. A majority of the panel members 85% (n=35) reported living with others (a category which includes married and cohabiting with or without children and separated, widowed, dovorced with children.) The 98 99 remaining 15% (n=6) lived alone. Over two~thirds or 75% (n=30) indicated that they owned their own dwelling while the remaining 25% (n=1l) reported living in a rented dwelling. A majority of the panel, 61% (n=25), reported that they were born/raised in a rural or small town setting, while the remaining 39% (n=l6) indicated that they grew up in urbanized areas. None of the panel members had lived in Flint for less than 5 years and one member reported having resided in the city for 74 years. The mean length of residency in Flint was approximately 30 years with a standard deviation of slightly over 18 years indicating a positively skewed distribution. Panel members had lived in the neighborhood from a minimum of 2 years to a maximum.of 60 years with the mean length of residency in the neighborhood being 17 years with a standard deviation of slightly under 13 years; again indicating a positively skewed distri- bution, albeit mere acute. 100 Assessment of Garofalo and Laub's Quality of Life Principal component analysis is used to determine how many quality of life factors there are. Table 1 indicates that three factors have an eigenvalue greater than 1, i.e., neighborhood problems of environment, parking/traffic and inadequate shopping. The first Table 1. Principal Component Analysis Output for Quality of Life Percent Cumulative Question Eigenvalue Variance Percent Environment 2.0* 28.5 28.5 Parking/Traffic 1.1* 15.6 44.1 Inadequate Shopping 1.0* 14.7 58.8 Crime .92* 13.2 71.9 Public Transportation .79 11.4 83.3 Schools .66 9.4 92.7 Problems w/ Neighbors .51 7.3 100.0 *Indicates best item-factor correspondence. factor, environment, accounts for 28.5% of the total variance between panel members on all seven questions. Parking/traffic, the second factor, accounts for 15-6% of the total variance between panel members on all seven questions. The third factor, inadequate lOl shopping, accounts for 14.7% of the total variance between panel members on all seven questions. Crime accounts for 13.2% of total variance between panel members on all seven questions. This, and an eigen- value for the fifth component which was considerably less than 1 (.79), were the basis for selecting a 3 factor solution (Table l). The results of the principal component analysis indicates that a three-factor solution with.varimax rotations is needed for testing the validity of the quality of life index. As shown in Table 2, three levels of quality of life loaded from.moderate to high. Table 2. Rotated Factor Structure for Quality of Life Problem Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Environment .34* .04 .05 Parking/Traffic .19 .29* .05 Inadequate Shopping .10 .10 .51* Crime ~ .47* .07 .25 Public Transportation .06 .72* .09 Schools .40* .26 .10 Problems w/ Neighbors .70* .34 -.39 *Indicates best item-factor correspondence. 102 Factor 1 which included environment (.34), crime (.47), schools (.40), and problems with neighbors (,70). Loadings for Factor 2 included parking/traffic (.29), and public transportation (.72). Only one loading for Factor 3 included inadequate shopping (,51). Table 3 indicates that for Factor 1 "Quality of Life" these items seem to be measuring the same thing; Factor 2 illustrates that problems of transportation, i.e., bus service and parking and traffic are compat- ible; and, Factor 3 "Quality of Shopping" is a separate issue. Table 3. Factor Groupings for Quality of NeigthrhOOd Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Quality of QuaIity of QuaIity of Life Transportation Shopping Environment Parking/Traffic Inadequate Shopping Crime Transportation Schools Neighbors Since the Garofaeo and Laub quality of life model has factor loadings for three groups, the model is not consistent as a measure of fear of crime. Therefore, 103 the traditional measure of fear of crime will be examined by principal component analysis to determine how many fear of crime factors there are by testing the six fear of crime questions: (1) neighborhood social activity; (2) decision to walk daytime; (3) decision to walk in the evening; (4) decision to walk at night; (5) supervision of children; and, (6) enter- tainment/recreation. The principal component analysis (Table 4) indicates that two factors have an eigenvalue greater than 1, i.e., social activity in the neighborhood (2.9) and decision to walk during the daytime (1.2). The Table 4. Principal Component Analysis Output for Fear of Crime Percent Cumulative Question Eigenvalue Variance Percent Neighborhood Social Activity 2.9* 48.9 48.9 Decision Walk Daytime 1.2* 20.3 69.2 Decision Walk Evening .89* 14.8 84.8 Decision Walk Night .45 7.5 91.5 Supervision of Children .30 5.1 96.6 Entertainment/Recre- ation .21 3.4 100.0 *Indicates best item-factor correspondence. 104 first factor, neighborhood social activity, accounts for 48.9% of total variance between panel members on all six questions regarding fear of crime. The second factor, decision to walk in the daytime, accounts for 20.3% of the total variance between panel members on all six questions in responses to questions about fear of crime. This, and an eigenvalue for the third component which was considerably less than 1 (.89), were the basis for selecting a 2 factor solu- tion (Table 4). The results of the principal component analysis indicates that a 2 factor solution with varimax rotations is needed for testing the validity of the fear of crime index. As shown on Table 5, two levels of fear loaded moderate to high. Factor 1 showed Table 5. Rotated Factor Structure for Fear of Crime . Factors Questions .;L_ _2_ Neighborhood Social Activity .40* .10 Decision Walk Daytime .30 .67* Decision Walk Evening .25 .49* Decision Walk Night .79* .22 Supervision of Children .93* .27 Entertainment/Recreation .08 .93* *Indicates best item-factor correspondence. 105 moderate loadings on neighborhood social activity (.40) and high loadings on decision to walk at night (.79) and supervision of children (.93). Factor 2 loaded high on dicision to walk daytime (.67), deci- sion to walk in the evening (.49), and entertainment/ recreation (.93). Table 6 indicates that fear of crime had two factors or dimensions. Factor I depicts Table 6. Fear of Crime Factor Factor 1 Factor 2 Specific Fear of Crime in Own Neighborhoodi Afraid at "Normal" Times Neighborhood Social Activity walk Daytime Walk at Night Walk Evening Child Supervision Entertainment/Recreation specific fear of crime in own neighborhood including neighborhood social activity; walking at night, and child supervision. Factor 2 was the grouping of fear at "normal" times including walking daytime, evening and entertainment/recreation decisions. 106 Analysis of Factor Scores In order to determine whether the two fear of crime factors exhibited any change between the first and third year of the foot patrol project weighted factor scores for each of the two factors were calculated for each member of the panel.1 Also computed were factor scores for each of the three quality of life factors. The quality of life factors are included in the analysis due to Garofalo and Laub's hypothesis that fear of crime exhibited by community residents is determined by the way that residents perceive the quality of life in their neighborhood. The factor scores on each of the five factors were compared for changes between Year 1 and Year 3. Also included in this analysis were the eight socio-demographic variables: age, sex, race, lived alone or lived with others, rent or own, years lived in neighborhood, years lived in Flint, and where grew up. These variables were included in the analysis because they were independent variables used in studies cited in the literature review (Chapter II). The statistical test used to analyze difference in factor scores between Year 1 and Year 3 as well as differences between values of the eight socio-demographic 107 variables and the factor scores was Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Each of the five sets of individual factor scores was paired with each of the eight socio-demographic variables and simultaneously examined by year. This yielded forty separate ANOVA analyses. Results are contained in Table 7. The asterick within the body of Table 7 denotes associations that are statistically significant at either the .05 (*) or .01 (**) level. Examination of the column labeled Qual Fl neighborhood issues reveals only one significant association. Older panel members have higher factor scores than their younger counterparts and this indicates that they are more likely to see neighborhood issues of environment, schools, crime, and problems with neighbors as a problem than are younger panel members. Moreover, this finding for Qual F1 neighborhood issues also occurred for the remaining two quality of life factors (Qual F2 - transportation issues; Qual F3 inadequate shopping issues) and for the Fear F1 which is fear at specific times in the neighborhood involving decisions made regarding neighborhood social activity, walking at night and child supervison. Older persons, in addition to seeing Qual Fl as more of a problem than their younger counterparts also saw Qual F2 and Qual F3 as well as Fear Fl as more problematic. 108 coeuomwoucH as use? is ow< coeuomumucH Meow utmm\cso coauomuoucH %% new? muwuuo\mwOH< m>fiq coauomnmucH snow momm coeuomumucH is know Rom Hmahoz mm Home oemeomem Hm Hmmh wcfimm0£m mm Hand .amsmHH Ne Haze msmme.eanz Hm Hana meanHm> udoucmmmucH .muouomm m>Hm osu mo comm at as use ammsuam a assume <>oz¢ Oceanus: em Hemoeummuaum mo use Meow wOHuMHHm> owe mu ofiopowoom seesaw .n pansy 109 mama Ho Ho. um unmowwwawflm n as mama no mo. um unmowmwawwm u « coauomumucH is “wow :mnHD\HmHSM Chou coeuomuoucH as new» uoosuoeswflmz mm>HA mummy soauOMHmucH «i “now ocean um>HA whom» HmEhoz owmaommm wcwamonm .mmcmHH . mommH.p£Am Nm swam Hm ummm mm Head um Hood Hm Hmso moanmwum> udwuflomomcH muouomm m>wh man no scam mum .Hmow.4mmanmflnm> ownmmuonOmOHoom ”imam of c358 message <>oz¢ “$3353 sflaofiflumum mo sausage. .s flame 110 The other major finding that emerges from Table 7 is one associated with the factor Fear F2 which is fear at "normal" times of making decisions to walk in the daytime; to walk in the evening (from 6-10 pgm.); and decisions made to go out for entertainment/recreation. Factor scores for Year 3 are on the average greater than for Year 1. This indicates that panel members see Fear F2 as more problematic in Year 3 than in Year 1. One remaining finding also associated with a change between Year 1 and Year 3 is worth noting. In the analysis between age, year and the factor scores for Qual F3 (inadequate shopping issue), a main effect due to year emerged along with the previously noted main effect due to age. Panel members see Qual F3 as more problematic in Year 3 than in Year 1. This finding suggests that similar results should occur for year in the remaining analysis involving Qual F3, i.e., in the ANOVA's involving sex, year and Qual F3, race, year and Qual F3, etc. In one respect this did occur in that the main effect due to year in the remaining seven ANOVA's involving Qual F3 did yield results that can be charac- terized as approximating statistical significance. In these seven ANOVA's the statistical significance for the main effect between year and Qual F3 was greater than 111 .05 but less than .10. In the ANOVA undertaken between age, year and Qual F3 the level of statistical signifiv cance was just over .04 and thus within the traditional criterion of .05. Finally, results from the ANOVAs analyses did not yield any situations where significant two-way inter- action effect occurred. 112 CHAPTER V Footnotes 1. See Nie, Norman H., et.al., StatiStical Package for the Social Sciences. Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975 on nonstandardized scores. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS IntroduCtion The purpose of this social impact assessment study was to examine the quality of life model of Garofalo and Laub (1978) as an explanation for the fear of crime in the mediumrsized city of Flint, Michigan. The literature describing fear of crime and quality of life in the community support this study since problems of "incivilities" which include vandalism, drug usage, deteriorating physical/environmental neighborhood conditions, juvenile curfew violations and noisy neighbors appear to have an effect on the way in which citizens perceive personal safety and crime in their neighborhoods. Factor analysis was applied to data from the first and third years of a foot patrol policing program to test the validity of quality of life as a concept of fear of crime. Factor analysis as a method of testing theory is further enhanced by the panel design of this study which is comprised of predominantly older females (mean age of 52 years) who are racially equal, own their own homes 113 114 and who live with others. Additionally, the panel can be characterized as long-term residents of Flint neigh- borhoods and the city itself (a mean of approximately 30 years) and were tested at two points in time: year 1 of the foot patrol program and again in the final year 3 of the foot patrol program. Findings As a result of the factor analysis on the Garofalo and Laub quality of life model, it is concluded that the model cannot be supported since it was three dimensional; i.e., there were factor loadings for three groups: (1) quality of neighborhood; (2) quality of transportation; and (3) quality of shopping, rather than one-dimensional if the model had been valid or measuring the same phenomenon. In addition, the traditional fear of crime measures, defined as decisions made pertaining to neigh- borhood social activity, decision to walk in the daytime, evening (6-10 p.mn) and night (after 10 p.m.), supervision of children, and entertainment/recreation, when factor analyzed revealed factor loadings that were two- dimensional. These two fear of crime factors included one group loading of fear at "specific" times (neighbor- hood social activity, walking at night and child 115 supervision) and fear at "normal" times (walking in the daytime and evening and going out for entertainment/ recreation rather than one dimensional, if the model had been valid. Finally, changes over time on the eight socio-demographic variables indicate an increase in fear of crime from the first year to the third year of the foot patrol program by panel members on "Fear 2," i.e., activities including walking both in daytime and evening and going out for entertainment/recreation. Implications While the Garofalo and Laub model was not totally supported (three dimensional) and fear of crime (two dimensional), the classification "Fear 2" involving decisions made regarding walking in the neighborhood during the day and evening (6-10 p.m.) and decisions made pertaining to entertainment/recreation did account for most of the differences. It is apparent from this finding that fear of crime involves mmre than just walking in the neighborhood at various times and that it is more than just walking in the evening after 10 pzm. However, while the Garofalo and Laub model is more than one-dimensional, it should not be dismissed outright; although admittedly it did not receive strong support 116 from the factor analysis, it does show some validity. What is apparent from the model and the examination of the traditional fear of crime variables, however, is the finding this study indicates that fear of crime is more than just lacking feeling of safety when walking in the neighborhood after 10 p.ms as defined by the National Crime Survey instrument. In relationship to the foot patrol program it is important to discuss why over time the panel's decisions, regarding walking in the neighborhood in the daytime and evening (6-10 p.m.) and whether or not to go out for an evening's entertainment/recreation, were affected. One readily available response to this phenomenon of more fear can be attributed to the age and sex of the panel members. As the literature supports, women and the elderly have more fear of crime than younger male subjects. Since the panel members in this study were predominantly older females who had been living in the city of Flint and its neighborhoods longer than younger panel members, they may remember when there were fewer "incivilities" (abandoned cars, deterior- ating physical conditions of housing; drug abuse, curfew violations by youths, noisy neighbors, and 117 vandalism) in the neighborhoods. This phenomenon is reinforced by the history of the implementation of the foot patrol program itself whose very inception recorded incivilities as the primary issues being indicated by the majority of residents at city-wide meetings when allocation of foot patrol services were decided and delegated to the respective fourteen foot patrol areas (see Chapter IV). In addition, older people may be more concerned with issues of parking/traffic, transpor— tation, and inadequate shopping due to age and the accompanying‘physicalTififirmities. Importantly, the literature on crime and the elderly (see particularly Cook and Cook, 1976) indicates that when older residents are exposed to crime prevention programs in their neighborhoods, they become more fearful, a phenomenon described in the research literature as the Halo effect. It must be re-emphasized that one of the original goals of the foot patrol program.was increased protection for women and the elderly; consequently, this can be perceived as the Halo effect if crime prevention was target toward these groups. Finally, another explanation for increased fear can be attributed to the fact that the foot patrol areas were greatly expanded during the third year of the program.with all areas increasing in size.1 118 Limitations of the Study Based on their earlier research Garofalo and Laub conceptually conceived of the quality of life framework as one way of examining fear of crime in the neighborhood. While this present study found that fear of crime is a component of the quality of life perspective, there are several limitations that must be discussed. One signifi- cant limitation of this study is attributable to the age and sex of the panel (mean age 52 and 75% female). Stronger support may have been provided for the Garofalo and Laub model if the panel had been more representative by age and sex. Additionally, the homogeneity of the Flint community (blue-collar) may have had an effect on the way that residents perceived the quality of life and fear of crime in their community. Indeed, the city of Flint experienced great difficulty during the three year test period of the Flint foot patrol program, experiencing in fact the highest unemployment rate in the nation! A final limitation of the present study can be attributed to the familiarity that the panel members had not only to the questionnaire itself, but the foot patrol program as well. By the third year of the study, foot patrol was a political issue in Flint which would ultimately result 119 in an increased two millage to extend foot patrol officers throughout the city of Flint. Several intervening variables also occurred during the course of the three year project including rotation of command officers, political intervention, layoffs, and racial tension. Recommendations Since one of the primary goals of social impact assessment is to facilitate decision-making by considering cost effectiveness of proposed programs, the question of cost effectivenss and replication of foot patrol as a style of policing must be considered. Foot patrol officers for the three year period were involved in program/projects designed to focus on problems of "incivilities"in.the neighborhoods through participation in block clubs and community council meetings. In these types of meetings, foot patrol officers listened to the citizens express concerns about problems with juvenile vandalism.and curfew violations, drug problems and environmental issues of abandoned cars, deteriorated housing, barking dogs, and noisy neighbors. In response to these problems, foot patrol officers devised programs designed to eliminate community "eye-sores": junk cars, 120 broken sidewalks, condemned buildings, gambling, prosti- tution, and stray dogs. In addition, through the aid of a community newsletter foot patrol officers have informed community residents of foot patrol services and have provided "tips" to residents on hOW'tO make their homes safer through programs including "Operation ID", "I'm Okay" sign programs for elderly residents, implementation of a porch light program for elderly citizens and the neighborhood watch program. In addition, officers assisted in purchasing dead bolt locks and installing them for elderly citizens. Foot patrol officers also assisted in juvenile problems through home vistiations, the Police Athletic League (FAL), juvenile counseling and referrals, teen club, working to establish fund raisers for schools through athletic functions, planning of community picnics and field trips for the neighborhood youth, and bicycle safety programs--a number of projects foot patrol officers devised in the fourteen foot patrol neighborhoods. It is through these types of "painting" or officers'assistance in the improvement of community quality of life eliminating "incivilities" that is indicative that it is not the number of police officers in a community that allows residents to feel safer, but rather the service activities that police officersrender to the residents. 121 The cost effectiveness of the foot patrol officer program in "painting" the Flint community is supported by the crime statistics for Flint discussed earlier indicating that by 1981 service complaints were decreased by 43.4%. This statistic implied that foot patrol officers were informally handling the less serious complaints such as abandoned cars, neighborhood children violating curfews and barking dogs. The accessibility of the foot patrol officer provided citizens an option other than relaying their complaints to central dispatch. Consequently, many minor problems were handled more cheaply and efficiently leaving the motorized patrols to respond to the more serious situations. As the literature on fear of crime described, citizens may feel safer in their communities because they are safer in reality; however, studies also indicated that citizens may feel safer if their neighborhoods are more orderly on the surface, e.g., better lighting, regular garbage collection, street repairs--although, these things many have nothing at all to do with their actual safety. As Trojanowicz, et.al. indicated in their study of the Flint foot patrol program, the series of interviews conducted showed that the citizens had a fairly accurate 122 sense of fluctuation in the rate of crime in their community. Crime rates and calls for service were down, and citizens believed that crime was down. Furthermore, they attributed this decrease in crime to the existence of the foot patrol program. RecommendatiOnS’for FuturelResearch One recommendation for future research is that an ethnographic method be used to explore the quality of life and fear of crime in communities. Ethnography is a method involving extensive fieldwork of various types including participant observation, formal and informal interviewing, document collecting, filming, and recording. It is an approach used to study relatively self-contained societies as well as groups, organizations and institutions within a society.2 The researcher through interaction in community crime prevention and block club organizations would increase his/her knowledge of environmental issues effecting residents and learn first-hand of the concerns that residents hold regarding their police department and the services provided. Content analysis would further strengthen the researcher's expertise by permitting an quantitative analysis of community 123 issues pertaining to quality of life and fear of crime concerns. A second recommendation encourages police and city officials to follow the example of Flint and involve the community in the initial and continued planning stages of crime prevention programs. Evaluation of the incidence of crime, location, type, methodology and other factors will provide information as to which programs are needed and in which sectionsof the city. It is the responsibility of the police department to gather and analyze crime data and pass this information on in order that community groups may have a role in deciding neighborhood priorities and overall city goals and objectives. It is important for both police officials, block leaders, and other residents to play an active role in the planning of community crime prevention programs. Conclusions This study relates that fear of crime is a sub- component of citizens' perception of the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The citizens' perception of quality of life and fear of crime was examined based on data from the Flint foot patrol program. 124 The Flint Foot Patrol study exemplifies what has been described as a "sense of community" realized when residents join together in reaching a goal or in maintaining preservation of amemory.4 The memory that the Flint community wanted to regain was the nostalgic image of the "beat" cop who symbolized order to Flint residents and city officials. The normative sponsorship approach encouraged citizens to participate in urban decision‘making affairs, and as a result a decentralized police force focusing on service and assistance to residents in improving the quality of life and diminishing fear of crime resulted. The citizens of Flint found this type of policing so rewarding and challenging that in 1982 they passed a two millage tax increase establishing foot patrol throughout the city. The impact of community policing (or foot patrol policing) will be experienced in the l9803--a time when the needs of the community must be met by a more service- oriented police department. This demand is indicated by studies now appearing that report the return of people to the smaller towns in search of a sense of neighborhood committment and an enhanced quality of life. Changes in policing patrol styles will have to meet the demands of the citizens that the police serve. This 125 study is one case of community policing that has been cost effective primarily because of its more service oriented style of policing. The findings of this study depict that foot patrol policing is cost effective and focuses on the quality of life aspects of community residents. 126 CHAPTER VI Footnotes 1. Trojanowicz, et.al., op.cit. 2. John Van Maanen; James M. Dabbs, Jr., and Robert R. Faulkner, Varieties of QUalitatiVe Research, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1982, 103. 3. George J. Washnis, Citizen InvOlvement in Crime Prevention, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976, 133. 4. , MuniCipal Decentralization and NeighborhoEd Resources: Case Studies Of TWelve Cities, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972, 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, Frank M., and Withey, Stephen B. ’SOCial Indicators of well-Beingz'Americans"PerceptiOn of Life Quality. New York: _Plenum Press, 1976. Antunes, George E., and Mladenka, Kenneth. "The Politics of Local Service Distribution." In The New Urban Politics, edited by Louis Masotti and Robert L. Lineberry, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1976. , and Plumless, John P. "The Distri- bution of an Urban Public Service: Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Bureaucracy as Determinants of the Quality of Neighborhood Streets." Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vo1ume 12, 1977, 313-332. Balkin, S. "Victimization Rates, Safety and Fear of Crime." SOcial Problems, Volume 26, February 1979, 343-358. Baumer, Terry L. "Research on Fear of Crime in the United States." VictimOlogy: ‘An InternatiOnal Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 3/4, 1978, 2544264. Beecher, Janice A.; Lineberry, Robert L.; and, Rich, Michael J. "Community Power, The Urban Agenda, and Crime Policy." Social Science‘Quarterly, Volume 62, Number 4, December 1981, 6304643. Biderman, A.D., et.al. Report On a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on VictimizationandAttitudes toward Law Enforcement. Washinton, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1967. Boggs, Sarah L. "Formal and Informal Crime Control: An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Orientations." The SociOlogical Quarterly, Volume 12, Summer 1971, 319-327. 127 128 Boskin, Joseph. Urban Racial Violence in the Twentieth Century. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1969. Boydstun, John E. and Sherry, Michael E. ‘San Diego Community Profile: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1975. . Sen Diego Field Interrogation: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Police’FOundation, 1975. Braungart, M., Braungart, R.G., and Hoyer, W.J. "Age, Sex and Social Factors in Fear of Crime," 'SOciological Focus, Volume 13, January 1980, 55—66. ’ Bright, J.A. Beat Patrol Experiment. Home Office Police Research and DeVelopment Branch, London, England, October 1970. Brill, William Associate, Inc. "Victimization, Fear of Crime and Altered Behavior: A Profile of the Crime Problem in Upper DwellingsJ'Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, July 1976. Brooks, J. "The Fear of Crime in the United States." Crime and Delinquency, Volume 20, July 1974, 241-244. Brudney, Jeffrey and England, Robert E. "Analyzing Citizen Evaluations of Municipal Services: A Dimensional Approach." Urban Affairs Quarterly, March 1982, 359-369. Bureau of Business Research. 'Michiga ‘StatiStical Abstract, Sixteenth Edition. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University School of Business Administration, 1981. Campbell, Angus. The Sense of‘Well-Being;in'America: Recent Patterns and Trends. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981. , and Schuman, Howard. "Racial Attitudes in ‘Fifteen American Cities." Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center. Also in Supplemental Studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1968, 1-67; and New York, Washington and London: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1968. 129 Campbell, D., Converse, P., and Rodgers, W. The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. Caputo, David A. "The Citizen Component of Policy Evaluation." Chapter 3 in Scioli, Frank Jr., and Cook, Thomas J. Methodologies for Analyzing Public Policies. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.D. Heath and Company, 1975, 25-32. , editor. The Politics Of Policy Making in America:‘ FiVe'Case StUdies. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman,*1977. Urban AmeriCa: ‘The P01i¢y Alternatives. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1976. Carte, Gene E. "Changes in Public Attitudes Toward the Police: A Comparison of 1938 and 1971 Surveys." Journal of Police Science and Administration, Volume 1, Number 2, June 1973,4182—200. Clark, R. "Community Social Indicators: From Analytical Models to Policy Applications." Urban Affairs, Volume 9, 3-36. Clemente, Frank and Kleinman, Michael. "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis." SOcial Forces, Volume 56, Number 2, December 1977, 519-531. Cohn, Ellen S. "Fear of Crime and Feelings of Control: Reactions to Crime in an Urban Community." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Philadelphia: Temple University, 1979. , Kidder, Louise H., and Harvey, Joan. "Crime Prevention vs. Victimization: The Psychology of Two Different Reactions." VictimolOgy: An International Journal, Volume 3, Numbers*374, 285-297. Cole, Richard L. Citizen Participation and the Urban Public Policy. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1974. Conklin, John E. "Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problems" 'SoCial Problems, Volume 18, Number 3, Winter 1971, 373-385. . ‘The'ImpaCt'o 'Crime. New York: Macmillan, 1975. 130 Cook, F. L. and Cook, T. D. "Evaluating the Rhetoric of Crisis: A Case Study of Criminal Victimization of the Elderly," Social Seience Review, Volume 50, December 1976, 632-646. Decker, Scott H. "Citizen Attitudes Toward the Police: A Review of Past Findings and Suggestions for Future Police," Journal of Po1ice Science and Administration, Volume 9, Number I,‘I981,P80-89. DuBow, Fred; McCabe, Edward; and Kaplan, Gail. Reactions to Crime: A Critical Review of the LiteratUre. United States Department of JustiCe, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Crimdnal Justice, November 1979. Ennis, P. H. Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Report of a National Survey. WaShington, D.C.: Presidentjs Commission on—Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Field Surveys II, 1967. Erskine, H. "The Polls: Fear of Violence and Crime," Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 38, Spring 1974, 9314145. Finsterbusch, Kurt. Understanding Social Impacts: Assessing the Effects of Public Projects. Beverly Hills: Sagequblications,Inc.,_1980. , and Welf, C. P., editors. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutcninson andvRoss, Inc., 1977. Fitzsimmons, Stephen J.; Stuart, Lorrie I.; and Wolff, Peter C. Social Assessment Manual: A Guide to the Preparation of the Social WelléBeinggAcCount for Planning Water Resourcegrojects. An Abt Associates Study in Applied Social Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1977. "Flint leads in jobless at 23 pct," Lansing State Journal, January 19, 1983, front page. Fowler, F., Jr. Citizen Attitudes Toward Local GoVernment ’Services and TaXes. Cambridge: BallingerPublishing Co., 1974. Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr. "Public Reaction to Crime in the Streets," American Scholar, Volume 40, Number 1, Autumn 1971, 601-610. 131 , and Wellford, Charles F. "Calling ’Ehe Police: The Evaluation of Police Service," Law and SOciety ReView, Spring 1973. Gaquin, Deirdre. "Measuring Fear of Crime: The National Crime Survey's Attitude Data." VictimOIOgy: 'An International Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 3/4, 314-318. Garofalo, James. "Victimization and the Fear of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 16, Number 1, 80-97. ' , and Laub, John. "The Fear of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective," Vidtimology:' An International Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 3-4, 1978, 242-253. Gay, William G.; Schell, Theodore H.; and Schack, Stephen. Improving Patrol PrOductivity: ‘Routine PatrOI. Washington, D.C.: COvernment Printing Office, 1977. Goldstein, Herman. Policing a Free SOCiety. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1977. Gordon, M., and Riger, S. "Fear and Avoidance: A Link Between Attitudes and Behavior," 'VictimOlo’ : An International Journal, Volume 4, Number 4, gg5-ZO2. Greenberg, David F. "Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis," Chapter 6 of MathematiCal Criminology by David F. Greenberg. NewPBrunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1979. Hagan, Frank E. Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982. Hale, Donna C. and Leonik, Robert G. "Planning Community- Initiated Crime Prevention," Journal Of Police SCience and Administration, Volume: 10, Number 1, Mardh 1982, 76-82. Hartnagel, Timothy F. "The Perception and Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect," SOCial FOrces, Volume 58, Number 1, September 1979, 176-193. 132 Hatry, Harry P.; Winnie, Richard E.; and Fisk, Donald M. PraCtiCal Program Evaluation fOr State‘andJLocal Government Officials. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1973. Henig, J., and Maxfield, M. "Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Intervention," Vietimologyz' An International Journal, Volume 3, Number 3, 297:313. Hindelang, Michael J. "Public Opinion Regarding Crime, Criminal Justice, and Related Topics," "Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 11, Number 2, July l974, 101-l16l Holden, M. "The Quality of Urban Order." ~In Schmandt, H. and Bloomberg, W., (editors). The Quality of Urban Life. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1969. Jackson, David J., and Borgatta, Edgar F., (editors). Factor Analysis and Measurement in SOCiological Research: A7Multi-Dimensiona1PPerspective. Beverly Hills, california: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage,'l96l. Jonassen, Christen and Peres, Sherwood H. Interrelationships ofDimensions of Community syStemsr' A Factor Analysis of Eighty-two Variables. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1960. Judd, Dennis. The Politics of American Cities: 'PriVate Power and Public Policy. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company, 1979. Kalinich, David and Karr, Jon. "The Impact of Violent Crime Rates on Community Members‘ Perceptions of Safety from Criminal Victimization," Police Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, Fall 1981, 20-23. Kelling, George L. "Police Field Services and Crime: The Presumed Effects of a Capacity," Crime and Delinquenc , Volume , Number , April 1978, 173-184. Kerlinger, Fred N. 'Foundations of BehaViOral Research. Second Edition. NewlYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. 133 Kim, Jae-on and Mueller, Charles W. IntroduCtion to Factor Analysis: 'What it is and How to Do It. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. Lee, Barrett A. and Guest, Avery M. "Determinants of Neighborhood Satsifaction: A Metropolitan-Level Analysis." The SOci01ogical Quarterly, Volume 24, Spring, 1983, 287-303. Lewis, Dan A., editor.‘ Reactions to crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1981. and Maxfield, Michael. "Fear in the Neighborhoods: An Investigation of the Impact of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 17, July I985, 165-189. and Salem, Greta. "Community Crime Prevention: An Analysis of a Developing Strategy." An unpublished paper of the Reactions to Crime Project Center for Urban Affiars, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, July 1980, 1-19. Lineberry, Robert L. Equality and Public Policy: ”The Distribution of Municipal Public ServiCes. Beverly Hills, Califbrnia: SagePublications, Inc., 1977. Liska, Allen E.; Lawrence, Joseph J.; and Sanchirico, Andrew. "Fear of Crime as a Social Fact," SoCial Forces, Volume 60, Number 3, March 1982, 760-770. Liu, B.C. Quality of Life Indicators in the united States Metropolitan Areas, Kansas City, MiSsouri: Midwest Research Institute, 1975. McPherson, Marlys. "Realities and Perceptions of Crime at the Neighborhood Level," Victimology: An Inter- national Journal, Volume 3, Numbers 374, 319-328. Maltz, Michael D. "Evaluation of Crime Control Programs." Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Lwaw Enforcement Administration Assistance, National Institue of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, April 1972. 134 Marans, R. and Rodgers, W; "Toward an Understanding of Community Satisfaction," in Hawley, A. and Rock, V. (editors), Metrop01itan AmeriCa: Papers on the State of Knowledge. Washington, D.C.: National Academy oflSciences, 1973. Merry, Sally Engle. Urban Danger:' Life in a Neighborhood of Strangers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981. Milbrath, L.W. and Sahr, R.C. "Perceptions of Environmental Quality." SOcial Indicators ResearCh, Volume 1, 1975, 397-438. Mladenka, Kenneth R. "Citizen Demand and Bureaucratic Response: Direct Dialing Demecracy in a Major American City." Urban Affairs Quarterly, Volume 12, 1977, 273-290. , and Hill, Kim Quaile. "The Distri- bution of Urban Police Services." Journal of Politics, Volume 40, February 1978, 122-133. Morash, Merry. ”The Application of Social Impact Assess- ment to the Study of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Projects: A Case Study." Journal of Criminal Justice: An International Journal, Volume 11, Number 3, 1983, 229-240. "Introduction: Understanding Criminal Justice Policy Implementation." In Implementing Criminal Justice Policies. Beverly Hills, California: ’Sage Publications, Inc., 1982. Nie, Norman H., et.al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Second Ed. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. "Monitoring the Quality of Criminal Justice Systems." In Campbell, Angus and Converse, P., editors. The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage, 1973. StUdies in Crime and Law EnforCe- ment in Major Metropolitan Areas. washington: Government Printing Office, 1967. 135 Reuss-Ianni, Elizabeth. 'TWo cultures of Policing; Street Cops and ManagemeooOfficers. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1983. Riger, Stephanie and Lavrakas, Paul J. "Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods." 'AmeriCan'Journal of Community Psychology, Volume 9, Number 1, 1981, 55-66. ; LeBailly, Robert K.; and Gordon, ‘Margaret T. "Community Ties and Urbanites' Fear of Crime: An Ecological Investigation." American Journal of Community Psychology, Volume 9, Number 6, December 198l, 653-665. Rodgers, W. and Converse, P. "Measures of the Perceived Overall Quality of Life." Social Indicators Research, Volume 2, 127-152. Rossi, P.; Berk, R.; and Edison, B. The Roots of Urban Discontent. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974. Sacco, Vincent F. "An Exploratory Analysis of the Conceptual Meaning of Perceptions of Crime." Canadian Journal of Criminology, Volume 24, Number 3, July 1980, 295-306. Sales and Marketing Management. 1980 Survey of Buying Power, Volume 125, Number 2, July 28, 1980. Schwartz, Howard and Jacobs, Jerry. Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness. ‘NewlYork: The Free Press, 1979. Shearing, Clifford D. and Leon, Jeffrey S. "Reconsidering the Police Role: A Challenge to a Challenge of a Popular Conception." Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, Volume 19, Number 4, October 1977. Sherman, Lawrence W. "The Sociology and the Social Reform of the American Police: 1950-1973" Journal of Police Science and Administration, Volume 2, Number 3, September 1974, 255-262. 136 _ ; Milton, Catherine; and Kelley, Thomas. Team Policing:” Seven Gase Studies. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1973. Shin, Doh C. "The Quality of Municipal Service: Concept, Measure and Results." 'SOcial Indicators ResearCh, Volume 4, Number 2, May I977, 207-229. Shotland, R.L.; Hayward, 3.; Young, 0.; Signorella, M.; Mindingall, K.; Kennedy, J.; Rovine, M.; and Danowitz, E. "Fear of Crime in Residential Communities." criminology, Volume 17, Number 1, May 1979, 34-45. ' Skogan, Wesley G. "Public Policy and Fear of Crime in Large American Cities," 1-18 in Gardiner, J.A., Editor. Public Law and Public Policy. New York: Praeger, 1977. Skolnick, Jerome. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Smith, Bruce. Police Systems in the United States. Second Revised Editibn. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Social Planning Associates, Inc. Part One of the Comprehensive Demonstration Program: Genesee County, Michigan MOdel Neighborhood} Unpublished paper. Chicago, Illinois: Social Planning Associates, Inc., n.d. Stinchcombe, Arthur L.; Adams, Rebecca; Heimer, Carol A.; Scheppele, Kim Lane; Smith, Tom W.; and Taylor, D. Garth. Crime and Punishment--Changing Attitudes in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1980. Systems Development Institute. The Greater Flint Area-- Neighborhood Quality of Life Report. Grand Blanc, Mibhigan: Systems Development Institute, June 1978. Szalai, Alexander and Andrews, Frank M. The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. Beverly Hills California: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1980. 137 Tanur, Judith M.; Mosteller, Frederick; Kruskal, William H.; Link, Richard F.; Pieters, Richard 5.; and Rising. Gerald R., editors.‘ Statistics: “A Guide to the UnknOWn. San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc., 1972. Taub, R.P., Taylor, D.G., and Dunham, J.D. Crime Fear of Crime, and the Deterioration of Urban Neighborhoods:' Final Repert. Washington, D.C.: United States Department oflJustice, 1981. Thomas, Charles W. and Hyman, Jeffrey M. "Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police Performance." 'JOurnal of Police SCienCe and AdminiStration, Volume 5, Number 3, 1976fl305-317. Toseland, Ronald W. "Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable?" Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 10, Number 3, 1981, 199-209. Trojanowicz, Robert C., et.al. "An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program.in Flint, Michigan.- East Lansing, Michigan, n.d. , and Morash, Merry A. Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts and Control. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Nineteenth Census, 1970. The 1970 Census of Population: Characteristics of the Population, United States Summary. United States Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. New York: Arno Press, 1976. Twentieth Census, 1980. ‘The 1980 Census of Population: 'CharaCteriStics of the Population, United States Summary. United States Department Of Commerce, SOcial and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. New York: Arno Press, 1980. Van Maanen, John; Dabbs, Jr., James M.; and Faulkner, Robert R. Varieties of QualitatiVe Research. Beverly Hills, CalifOrnia: Sage Publications, Inc., 1982. 138 Verway, David I., editor. ‘Michigan Statistical Abstract. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Graduate School of Business Administration, September 1980. Washnis, George J. CitiZen‘InVOlvement in Crime Prevention. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath andCompany, 1976. Municipal DeCentralization and Neigh- ’borhood Resources: 'Case Studies of TWelve Cities. New York: Praeger PubliShers, 1972. Watts, W. and Free, L.A., editors. 'The State of the Nation. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Research, 1974. Webb, K. and Hatry, H. ObtaininguCitiZen Feedback:"The ApplicatiOn of Citizen Surveys to Local Government. Wabbington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1973. Westley, William A. ViOIence and the POIice: ‘A Sociological StUdy of Law, Custom;and Morality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1972. Wilson, James Q. Varieties of Police BehaViOr: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities. Cambridge,‘Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press, 1968. Yates, Douglas. "Service Delivery and the Urban Political Order." In Improving the Qualioy'of‘Urban'Management, edited by Hawley, Willis D. andRogers, David. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1974. Yin, Peter. "Fear of Crime as a Problem for the Elderly." Social Problems, Volume 30, Number 2, December 1982, 2405245. APPENDIX A 140 mos «NH.m mmo.H me Hmm om OH oownm meH mmq omH.m woo.a Ham qqm om 0H oom.m owma mmq wwo.m mm¢.H mum NHN mm OH Hmm.m mmma mmq ¢¢N.N ¢N¢.H 0mm HmH an m moa n wnma uwmaa maoonmq mumawudm uHDmmm< .Nuopnom, umwm Hounwdmamcmz manuoe How» ou5< uwum>muww¢ ucowwameucoz xouaH Mommas mawno mmHmnww< uaowwawoz:fioz xmucH .Howudz QEHHU ezHam zH omemommm mmmzmmmo so ooo.00H mam memuww< ucmmwameuaoz xmucH nouns: mawho Aaoaumasmom ooo.om~ - ooo.ooa mo mmnuaov amemommm mmmzmsso so ooowooa mam seem Apmsawuaoov mouwum toned: mfiu aw paw uaaam aw pmuhomom wwmcmmmo mo ooorooa Mom mmumm mawuo .m mqmbODUuQU .050209 ”Lu E05. finds—bu up.“ ”VJ—UC— “CC “OOOCGCC NCOmuNnu .acocum a so». uni—Nu nan Nov:.u=_ .nNopccc NeoaaNnu .acocuo o 69.. Nos—cu om~ Nova-us. .nNo~.. .am. sonata. asa. so». unnotuuv so uNnoNuc_ omoNcoucuac NN. N._ N.. NNN NoN .NNN _ NNN NmN N.n snwwmwmmwml sluwNowuwmm- commutuuo linuN~wuwmmn cuNaoNuc. coNqucuoo _ cuNNocueo «unoccuuo counoeuc. u~.a . . 9mm .NJ m~ mm new :mo swig an .N— _O_ on: maw _ :60 m:m .._ an. enm can noun-nun coo-nu n ccan 3 w4uzu t.coNcum 050; NuachU 0 Non Neuutna >:ouc~4 >cuuend now .E_Nu >uopaox _ En_.ovc~> “_anun¢ uuugb gnu >u~_mu:a Q>M